Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Prince's Youth Business Trust

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. David Shaw: I am grateful to the procedures of the House of Commons for Adjournment debates and for enabling me to obtain this first debate of the morning on the work of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. The trust particularly interests me because I am chairman of the Conservative party's Back-Bench smaller businesses committee, although the comments that I shall make today are not designed to be of a partisan or political nature.
I have also started a small business, and have helped others to start small businesses. For many years, I have passionately believed that this country will succeed not only as a result of large businesses but of enhancing opportunities for people to develop small businesses, which are increasingly being shown to be the future for many people and are, indeed, providing many opportunities for them.
As Members of Parliament, we are privileged to see and learn about many projects designed to help to improve the lives of people in our nation. Some of those projects are not always successful. Indeed, some do not even get off the drawing hoard. Some projects do not always help the people that they are intended to help, and some projects produce short-term benefits and have no lasting long-term impact.
None of those problems applies to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, which has now helped some 25,000 young people to start their own businesses. It has demonstrated success, it has gone from the ideas stage to the achievement stage, and it has shown that its benefits are long-term.
The purpose of my debate is to draw attention to the achievements and success of the Prince's Youth Business Trust, which was started by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales just over 10 years ago as a youth business initiative. It was his Royal Highness's idea, and he has been a very active president who is frequently seen at meetings and exhibitions associated with the trust.
Some may ask why the Prince's Youth Business Trust is necessary. Youth unemployment in this country exists under all Governments, and no Government have succeeded in avoiding the problem. Although the United Kingdom has one of the lowest levels of youth unemployment in Europe, it is still significant, and I hope that all hon. Members will always consider good, new ideas to deal with the problem. There is also an increasing recognition that young people need help to take their first

step up the ladder. They need some form of assistance to show them the difference between a life of education or a life, perhaps, of unemployment, and what work entails. The Prince's Youth Business Trust fulfils that role.
One other significant problem of the 1980s and 1990s is that, with more and more global competition and greater demands on British business to be more efficient and effective in its operations, larger companies are growing in size—not by increasing their staff numbers, but by reducing them to become more efficient. Consequently, the growth of companies today often occurs in the capital of the business and not necessarily in staff.
That is not always bad for Britain. Indeed, it is often good for Britain, because it means that our best companies are internationally efficient and competitive. It also means, however, that more and more young people will not necessarily get work in large companies, they will get work in smaller businesses and even start their own small business. Self-employment, which is some 3 million strong in this country, now offers hope of a good future in employment for many young people.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given way on that very point. Coming from an area where the bulk of people are employed in small businesses, I support him. I pay my own tribute to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, for one of my constituents was one of the national winners this year. I pay tribute to its work in stimulating young people to go forward, when other aids are no longer able to help them.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point so well. I know that many hon. Members will be able to say the same sort of thing about the way in which their constituents have won awards. That is a feature of the scheme that encourages more young people to come on, creating the friendly competitive atmosphere in which the businesses develop.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's important speech on such an important and interesting subject, but will he emphasise the after-care by the Prince's Trust once a business is established, and its unwillingness to prepare a business plan for a young person, so that nobody gets the wrong idea? I believe that that is the point.

Mr. Shaw: As always, my hon. Friend is slightly ahead of the game, and he has raised the very point that I intended to stress. However, it is worth emphasising at every stage in my speech that the after-care and advisory work is a most important feature of the way in which the Prince's Youth Business Trust operates.
I admire tremendously the work of the trust in helping young people to set up their own businesses. The skills that need to be developed to start a business are substantial. Young people also have to face the risks that that involves. Starting a business is not risk-free, and the trust emphasises the risks involved before allowing a young person to proceed with his or her scheme. The entrepreneurial spirit of the country and of those young people who take part is greatly encouraged. The young people also need hard work and dedication, or they will not succeed. At every stage, the trust encourages those qualities to develop.


When one goes round the exhibitions and sees many of the young people involved in the trust, one realises that, in a different environment and without the opportunities provided by the trust, those people might not have been able to develop those abilities. I am convinced that some of them have developed a hard-working and dedicated attitude and an entrepreneurial spirit that they did not realise were there within them, which have been released by the work of the trust.
The Prince's Youth Business Trust helps 18 to 29-year-olds who are out of work and disadvantaged—people who, for one of a number of reasons, are finding life tough. Some are living in deprived areas, and in areas where the Government or the European Union provide support in one way or another. Many lack formal education at advanced level, some live in had housing conditions, some come from single-parent families, many have unemployed parents, and others have no family support. The trust makes a special effort to encourage applications from disabled people, from members of ethnic minority communities and from former offenders. The age limit for disabled applicants is 30.
Young people who are to join the trust scheme must all have a viable idea for starting their own business. That is the key—a viable idea. They then have to prepare an acceptable and well worked-through business plan, and must prove that they have the necessary initiative and commitment to make a go of it. As a general rule, they cannot obtain money from other sources, because money is often not available to people in their circumstances—and that is where the trust fills a gap in the financing market.
I shall now go into a little detail for the House, and place on record some of the methods by which the trust operates. First, it operates on sound business principles. There is a tremendous emphasis on sound business practice, and that is a critical aspect of the approach of the trust and its advisers to helping young people.
The trust gives loans of up to about —5,000—although the average loan is as low as £2,000—to people who are setting up or expanding a business, and the money may he used for stock, equipment or working capital. The loans are repayable; money is not written off. For the business, repayment is as follows: for the first six months neither interest nor capital is repaid; in the second six months, there are capital repayments but no interest; in the second year, capital is repaid and interest is charged at 3 per cent; in the third year, full capital and interest at 8 per cent. are paid.
Although most applicants receive loans, the trust sometimes offers grants of up to £1,500 to individuals and up to £3,000 to groups of people who want to start a business. Grants may be used for tools, equipment, transport, fees, insurance or training, but not as working capital or for rent, rates, raw materials or stock.
Since 1991, the trust has been able to give second loans of not more than £5,000 to people under 30 who have already had one loan or grant. Second loans are purely for expansion; they cannot be used to rescue failing operations, for which different help and advice are available.
The fact that second-loan finance is available is an important factor worth bearing in mind, because in my experience of small businesses, all too often those that can

fail are the successful ones, because they get carried away with their own success, extend their debtors and end up in serious financial difficulties. All too often in this country, it is the business that has done reasonably well as a start-up business that over-extends itself and may get into serious difficulties, so it is especially interesting that the trust has now recognised the problem, and can now give second-tier finance for expanding businesses.
Another key feature is the fact that test marketing grants are often given to young people who have a good idea but need to do more market research before the idea can he put into practice, or even before it can he determined whether it is viable. Such market research often results in the trust's giving further support for more work even before the business starts.
Much pre-planning is involved, which is especially good and helpful for young people. Careful planning is an essential ingredient. No loan is given without a business plan, which is checked by the trust's pool of experienced business men and women. Market research is encouraged, required, and tested, if possible.
By now, the House will appreciate that the trust needs both staff and finance to do its work. Its operations now extend to the whole of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and north of the border there is a separate Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust. The trust's work is carried on through 38 area boards, to which young people apply for financial support. I hope that many hon. Members are either in contact with or have spoken to their area boards—I am sure that that is true of most Members who are here today.
Most area managers are either seconded or are trust employees whose costs are funded in whole or in part by donations. Local business people, too, are involved in each area hoard, and there is at least one area manager and sometimes more than one. Invaluable support, either voluntary or donated, comes from companies, training and enterprise councils, local authorities, Government Departments and European funds. I am pleased to say that there is even an area office in my constituency, at Whitfield just outside Dover.
If I may be forgiven for doing so, I shall refer briefly to the problems in my area and to the relevance of the trust in my constituency and in east Kent as a whole.
The area that I represent is suffering from a serious change because of the channel tunnel. Obviously, the ferry industry has become more efficient and effective, but it is expecting considerable competition. There has been a change in the labour market. The larger companies in the area have been shedding labour, and in many cases, for reasons that I have already explained, they have passed their peak in their use of labour.
Many young people who had expected to follow careers similar to those of their parents will not be able to do so. People have been slow to realise that small businesses might fill that gap. That is not surprising, as much of the area has not been used to running small businesses in the past. Therefore, there is an opportunity for something like the Prince's Youth Business Trust to help develop the skills of young people.
Some young people in east Kent have developed skills and taken up loans and grants from the trust, and I pay tribute both to the trust and to those young people for showing entrepreneurial and risk-taking skills.


I hosted an exhibition for the trust in the House of Commons some four years ago, and it is with slight sadness that I report that one of the businesses at that exhibition which was founded by someone from my constituency is no longer working and employing in my constituency. The business became so successful that it moved closer to its market in London, and it has set up a successful operation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner).
My hon. Friend is not here today, but she sends her apologies as she is away on House of Commons business in Europe. The trust has been successful in helping young people in my area, and I look forward to more help in the future for the young people who need the benefits which the trust can bring.
The success rate of the trust in helping businesses is considerable. An independent survey of the trust carried out recently on behalf of the Department of Employment showed that two thirds of businesses were still trading after two to three years. That is an incredible achievement, because it is the reverse of what normally happens.
Normally, two thirds of businesses fail within two to three years of their start-up date. It is quite an achievement for many of the young people who have taken advantage of the trust that their businesses have a greater likelihood of success than the national average for small businesses. Starting a business is risky, and it is good to see that level of success.
The trust's strong performance is particularly interesting when one takes into account the age and background of those it has helped. Many of the young people would not normally have been associated with running a successful business, nor would their background have been the sort from which one would have expected success in business to come. The trust has managed to generate within the United Kingdom the skill and ability which, while clearly present, might not have had an opportunity to grow if the trust had not been in existence.
It is not all had news for those businesses which are no longer trading. Half the people involved in such businesses decided that self-employment was not for them and are now working for other people. The skills and the discipline which those people learned from their work were useful for them in getting work elsewhere.
I am not one for political correctness hut, with a lady Minister on the Front Bench, I should refer to International Women's Day. My wife has taken International Women's Day literally, and she is in America on business at the moment. She is celebrating that day by battling for her bit of business, which I hope will bring benefits to Britain as a result.
One interesting feature to mention on International Women's Day is that the trust has discovered that the women it helps into business have been shown to have a slightly better rate of survival in business than men. Women in businesses helped by the trust seem to be more able to face competition than is often imagined. That shows that what helps women is not so much giving them positive discrimination as making sure that the opportunity is there for them.
The report sponsored by the Department of Employment also shows that the trust is cost-effective and very efficient in terms of the way in which helps businesses and helps people to avoid becoming unemployed and claiming benefit.
Businesses do not survive without a solid form of successful experience, which the trust ensures they have. The trust helps young people whether they remain in business or go to work for somebody else's business.
Many people may well ask why the trust's success rate is so good. What is it that especially helps the young people to develop their businesses? What is the trust doing for women in business that they perhaps might not get elsewhere? What is it that helps young people to develop their skills and to take on the risks involved in starting a business?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred to the careful preparations which a young person must make, and to the advice that is available. That is the key to the whole system. A business plan must he prepared in a disciplined manner. Market research must he carried out carefully by a young person into whether his business will be able to sell its products or services. But the one magic and essential ingredient which we have mentioned is the advisers, and it is worth paying tribute to the advisers who help the trust.
The advisers are business men themselves, and they give ongoing help and advice to every trust-supported business. Each person who starts up a business has his own adviser. That adviser is a volunteer who ideally has started his own business, and he will keep a friendly eye on the entrepreneur for a couple years or more. The adviser can call in other expert help if it is necessary. If an adviser does not have the skills which are relevant to a problem, another adviser can be called on.
The trust has about 5,400 advisers, but the current rate of expansion of the businesses which the trust is helping is such that about 2,000 new volunteers are needed every year. One of the big problems is that marketing experts are greatly in demand and, having a father who has been involved in marketing, I am not surprised. One of the UK's weaknesses has been that we have not done enough marketing in the past, and I am delighted that the trust puts an emphasis on encouraging young people to take marketing advice and tries to provide marketing advisers.
The trust is more than just a business trust. It has become the largest business consultancy in the world, but it pays its consultants absolutely nothing. it has been estimated that the trust gives £5 million cf advice free every year to the supported businesses and to the people who created the businesses.
I shall briefly mention some examples of the types of businesses created under the trust. I have visited a number of the regular exhibitions at St James's palace, which the Prince has hosted, at which I have seen a wide variety of businesses. There are often 25 businesses run by young people represented at a typical exhibition, and they cover a wide range of products and services. One common factor which one cannot fail to notice is the tremendous enthusiasm of the young people for businesses which they have created.
The businesses range from fashion concerns to swing-boat operations in fairgrounds, and from those involved in the world of electronics to those who make hand-made pottery. There are a whole host of mobile businesses, including farriers and hairdressers. There have been drystone wall builders and repair firms. There have been businesses dealing with golf clubs, musical instruments, ceramics and gilding. One firm even offers alternative wedding arrangements. There are cake makers and pet food delivery services.


The trust proudly claims that it has some unusual businesses, although one wonders what an unusual business is today, which include charcoal burners, sheep pregnancy testing and a firm that tracks underground pipes and cables. There are falconers, a team of high-wire motorcycling experts, and fire-eating jousters. The trust has also supported businesses that teach chess or rock guitar.
The 20,000th young person supported by the Prince's Youth Business Trust was a lady from Sheffield who set up a shiatsu practice. I am looking forward to someone explaining all the details of shiatsu to me. The trust is looking forward to celebrating the 25,000th young recipient of its work, and is well on the way to the 30,000th during the next year or so.
A young man who uses a wheelchair could not find a lightweight and inexpensive model, so he designed his own and started a business. He now has a turnover of £200,000 from selling lightweight, inexpensive wheelchairs.
The businesses have also reached great heights of success and the PYBT has created some millionaires. The first is a Kenyan-born Asian, who is running a garage in Peterborough. His recent turnover approached £750,000 and he has been appointed a member of his area Prince's Youth Business Trust board. His case interests me in particular, because it shows that the trust now has people coming on to its advisory board who have gone through the process and been helped themselves, which means that success is starting to build success. That is one of the key features of getting successful businesses going–one needs the advice and contact with someone who has done it before.
There are numerous award schemes, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said in an intervention, which often have prizes and other methods of encouraging young people to develop businesses. They operate in a friendly and competitive way, which encourages young people to build something really worthwhile and to achieve recognition as a result of the award.
The Reader's Digest recently sponsored the award scheme. One of the more successful businesses is Caring Force, which is run by two ladies in Merseyside, provides a professional mobile care assistant service to the community and employs 35 people. Another award winner is a young man in Lancashire who has developed a universal hand control for disabled drivers. Another is a Nottingham metal-cutting business called Esprit Automation, which has just exported 22 cutting machines to the far east. They are very worthy of an award and of the recognition of hon. Members.
One company peels and packs vegetables for restaurants and hotels. Another person runs a surfing business in Cornwall, and another uses recycled materials to make jewellery and bags and employs 33 people. So there are environmentally friendly businesses, too.
Various businesses and inventions have been well marketed and given considerable support. Apparently, one even sells a particularly ingenious type of cuff link known as Cuffas, and another makes solid fuel briquettes from wood shavings—Dobviously another environmentally friendly business.
The markets of the various businesses cover the social spectrum. I gather that one makes hats for society weddings and its hats, and accessories have featured in Vogue and Harpers & Queen magazines. The goods sold by PYBT businesses are on sale around the world and its events department is hard at work organising many exhibitions to promote the products and services. One young engineer—it is nice to hear that manufacturing businesses are being helped as well—has developed a gear invention that is helping to break national and international speed records, although I hope not on our motorways.
The trust has been involved in a successful pilot scheme to help young offenders in custody to prepare and set up businesses when they are released. The first young offenders involved in the scheme are in business–one as a welder and one as a dog groomer–and two ladies who met in prison are running a greetings card business.
The House will by now realise that both conventional and non-conventional businesses are supported. It is also worth noting that minority businesses, people from ethnic minority groups and disabled persons are also given full support. Leaflets for young people wanting to set up businesses have been printed in Urdu, Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi and Gujerati. Considerable emphasis is placed on trying to ensure full equality of opportunity under the PYBT scheme.
About 340 disabled people have been helped to start up in business, which is a substantial percentage compared with those in the economy as a whole. Clearly, that is something that needs support. They have set up a wide variety of businesses and range from landscape gardeners, photographers, remedial therapists, clowns and disability awareness trainers to jewellery designers.
About 95 full and part-time members of staff are paid by the trust. We should pay tribute to their hard work and skills and the effort that they have put in. There are also 49 secondees and 89 funded employees from Government, industry and many large companies. In many instances, the latter have taken a break from their career to support something that they, and the boards of directors of those companies, believe is worth while.
The trust needs to attract at least 40 new secondees a year. I hope that anyone listening to this debate or reading Hansard who is interested will apply to help the trust in its work. It operates under a 95-member advisory council—there is plenty of advice and support.
The PYBT obtains grants and assistance. The Government have given considerable support and the Prince of Wales set up an appeal for about £28 million on his 40th birthday in 1988, which the Government, with all-party support, agreed to match pound for pound. The appeal has depended on donations from the private sector and, despite the problems of the recession, there has been considerable support from that sector because it recognises that the work is worth while.
I understand that the Department of Employment has given about £21 million to the PYBT, which is extremely cost-effective because the Department is paying about £2,500 per person helped. That money is forthcoming only if the young entrepreneur is still trading 15 months after being given the original PYBT loan or grant. A second condition is that the trust must raise funds from other sources. The demands put on the trust by the


Employment Department are therefore reasonable and effective, and encourage success. They also encourage the trust to demonstrate that it is succeeding.
There are many people to be helped out there, and, as limits on resources enable the trust to help only about 5,000 a year, there is probably a need for additional finance, but I stress to my hon. Friend the Minister that the purpose of my debate was not to press for more funds. We did not feel that that was appropriate today, although I am sure that my hon. Friend will have inferred from what I have said that I would certainly not be unhappy if the Ministry delivered more funds or resources in this instance. As a chartered accountant and member of the Conservative finance committee, I do not like to see money wasted in the public sector.
Without making a strong demand for more funds from the Government, one can say that considerable evidence shows that the trust is an effective way of helping young people. It is effective in terms of both cost and quality of output.
By emphasising the value for money that the trust is producing, the large number of young people who are helped, the many benefits to members in a wide variety of constituencies, and the future opportunities for young people, I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the real benefits which the scheme brings to the country. Many young people will be better off as a result of the trust, and many other people will benefit as a result of the solid business base that is being developed from work that it carries out.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for raising this subject. My researcher tells me that we have never had a debate on the Prince's Youth Business Trust and that it has been mentioned only once in a written question. That is odd and sad, but I hope that we shall correct it today.
May I say at the outset that hon. Members are united by the fact that your immediate predecessor, Madam Speaker, since stepping down from his job as Speaker of this House, has become involved in the trust. The House, and especially hon. Members in the Chamber today, therefore can all feel associated with the initiative.
The hon. Member for Dover raised this topic not to ask for something but to tell the House how extremely good the scheme is. I want to share that main message with him, although at the end of my brief speech I shall express my real concern about the trust's ability to do as it wants in south London, given the circumstances in that area.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak for two reasons: first, because in my parliamentary party's team I am responsible for looking after the interests of young people, urban and looking after urban issues; and, secondly, because my constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom.
It is no pleasure to have a constituency with the fourth highest rate of unemployment in Great Britain and the fifth highest in the UK—west Belfast has a higher unemployment rate—with 7,500 people unemployed. According to the latest figures, male unemployment is 28.5 per cent.; female unemployment is 12.8 per cent.; and the average rate is 28.1 per cent.
So anyone who gives unemployed people, particularly the young, an opportunity to be employed, engaged, resourceful and independent is extremely welcome and hugely necessary. About 1 million young people in the age group which we are discussing are currently registered unemployed, so the potential for helping people who need such initiatives is huge.
The hon. Member for Dover gave some figures, and I shall try not to repeat much of what he said. But the figures he gave are extraordinary: the trust has helped some 23,000 people in 18,000 newly formed businesses, two thirds of which are still trading. Compared with the normal fall-out rate among small businesses, that figure is exceptional, if not unique.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fact that the money is given in loans or grants, and that advice is given free of charge by experienced business people—advice is given at the beginning and advisers remain available to the young people—appears to make the trust the biggest business consultancy of its type in the world. The fact that the aid and assistance is free is extraordinary.
I am sure that the trust would not mind if the debate served to tell a few people out there who might he interested in being advisors to come and join it, so I am happy to plug for more advisers: please contact the main office. In a second, I shall be as crude about telling people how to contact the trust, because we are here to promote a good thing.
I am much more "wised up" on the trust than I was a year ago, not because I was not aware of the trust before, but because the trust has recently made a particular effort to communicate to hon. Members. Initiatives have been made here and in another place.
I was among hon. Members from both sides of the House invited to Buckingham Palace in December by the Prince of Wales to be briefed on his trusts' work. That briefing helped to explain the complication that there is a family of prince's trusts, of which the youth business trust is only one. It is important to clarify that point. The trust that we are discussing, which is for business start-up, covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a similar trust exists for Scotland.
I pay tribute to the fact that the Prince of Wales has taken initiatives to set up organisations that reach out to and work with those in the community for whom extra help, support, advice and finance can make all the difference. May I list the whole family of prince's trusts so that it is clearly on the record? It comprises the Prince's Trust and Royal Jubilee Trusts; the Prince of Wales's Advisory Group on Disability; the Prince's Trust Volunteers; the Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust, which is the sister organisation to the Prince's Youth Business Trust; the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum; Business in the Community; Scottish Business in the Community; and the Prince of Wales's Committee.
I shall now make a crude plug for the Prince's Youth Business Trust. People can express their interest to area boards, but the trust's address is 5, Cleveland place, London SW1. The telephone and minicom number is 0171 925 2900, and the fax number is 071 839 6494. Cleveland place is at the back of St. James's square. If anyone thinks that that is a posh address, as it is, the area board addresses are often much less posh. In any case, people have only to telephone.


Another interesting statistic is that the third of businesses which are not still trading have not necessarily failed. Half of those involved in them have decided to opt for self-employment, and the trust has therefore acted as a stepping stone. Another good aspect is that the trust operates as a last resort. That may not happen in every case, as it is not perfect, but it seeks to help when people have been turned down by banks and cannot get going with help from elsewhere.
It is a bit like going to the European Court, in that one must exhaust the domestic remedies first. People must have exhausted their normal financial possibilities first. The trust also sets the precondition that beneficiaries are not from well-off backgrounds, and that resources, buildings and training schemes would not normally be available to potential beneficiaries.
The figures relating to beneficiaries are telling. A pie chart in the last report shows that 9 per cent. of those helped were young offenders; 10 per cent. were from ethnic minority backgrounds; and 5 per cent. were young disabled people. Those are all above-average percentages.
The chart also shows that 41 per cent. of those helped were female. Although not half, that figure is good, given how often such schemes are skewed in favour of males. Moreover, no area of the country gets much less than 5 per cent. of the money—Northern Ireland gets 4.8 per cent. The area that received most was the north-west, so funds are not metropolis-centred either.
Interestingly, in passing, we are talking about what the hon. Member for Dover rightly says is the main area of business in our society. I gather that 90 per cent. of businesses in our country–as the Minister must know better than I–employ fewer than 10 people, and 70 per cent. employ fewer than five people. Small businesses are what Britain is about. For whatever reason, the age of coal mines and docks is past.
It is good that we produce vibrant earners and vibrant survivors. It is important to ensure that young men and women–I pay particular tribute to the latter on International Women's Day–have the skills to be part of the work force, to earn for themselves and to earn for Britain.
The Government have been helpful. They have, I think, said that they are paying £2,500 a person, up to a total of £10 million, for three years, starting this year, but only if the person continues to trade after 15 months, and there must be matching funds. I hope that that will be sustained and never reduced. As the hon. Member for Dover said, more money would be welcome.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Dover mentioned that another good deal was recently secured with the clearing banks—the "Banks Directory". They will match other funds for the hest businesses, on preferential interest rates. That means that those businesses may be moved to the support of the banks, releasing Prince's Youth Business trust moneys to work with other people. That is very good news.
I have witnessed the work on the ground, as others have. I visited, like Jeremy White, chief executive of the trust, the firm that features pictorially in the most recent annual report. That firm is imaginatively called Michenuels, named after the three lads who are the partners—Miguel, Henroy and Michael, whom we met.

They are furniture makers and restorers. They had done some work; they were unemployed; they had come together and were now restoring furniture.
They were in a little estate business start-up unit on the borders of my constituency, on the Deptford-Bermondsey border. They seek more premises. They want to obtain premises on the main road, so that they can sell their wares. They are enthusiastic, vibrant, go-ahead and ready to storm the world. If anyone has any furniture that they need restoring, they should go to Michenuels, because they will do a good job. That is exactly the type of business that we should be interested in.
I shall now mention local circumstances and make my specific request to the Minister. In south London, 40 per cent. of new businesses are started by members of the ethnic minority community, and I am told that 33 new businesses have been set up in or near my constituency by the Prince's Youth Business trust. I am told that south London will receive £62,000 from the trust this year in grants and £250,000 in loans. Good money is entering an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in Britain.
Madam Speaker, you know as well as anyone that one should never write off a district simply because it has traditionally suffered from high unemployment. People living in such districts are not less skilled or less talented. By contrast, one probably needs to be more streetwise, bright, sharp-eyed and bushy-tailed if one lives in a grotty estate in the middle of south London, or Liverpool, Leeds or Bradford, than if one lives on the white cliffs of Dover, looking out over lovely views. If the success rate in south London is that more than 80 per cent. of PYBT businesses continue to trade after three months, and more than 60 per cent. are still going after three years, that is good news indeed.
The Prince's Youth Business trust relies heavily on business start-up schemes, and business start-up courses run by the local enterprise agencies are the precondition to that working. Young people, when they are in the scheme, also need the enterprise allowance money—that is the way in which they fund themselves, so that they are supported for what is now six months and was 12 months.
There is a significant worry that enterprise allowance might be removed—I flag that up. If it is, it will pull the rug from under the scheme altogether. I say to the Minister: please may we have a guarantee today, or will she speak to her colleagues and give a guarantee later, that, as long as the present Government are in office, the enterprise allowance will not be removed?
The immediate additional problem is that, since the South Thames training and enterprise council went into liquidation at the end of December 1994, no one can claim enterprise allowance in the South Thames TEC area, and there are no business start-up courses. Suddenly, because the TEC was the servicing agency, there is a closed door. There is no way in, and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that the Prince's Youth Business trust, the door to opportunity for many people, is closed as a result of the way in which Government and the TEC have been sorting out their business.
I initiated, and we have had, an Adjournment debate, thanks to you, Madam Speaker, about the South Thames TEC, but that matter must be sorted out soon. The people knocking at the PYBT door in south London are now not receiving an answer, because the TEC is not there.


My last general request to the Minister is, will she please not only sort that out so that we may get into the slipstream again, but also put money back into TECs? Cutting TEC funding–—137 million was cut last year—is bad news, because it reduces enterprise allowance and reduces business start-up schemes. I repeat my specific request to the Minister; will she please not leave south London as the one area of the country that, because our TEC has folded, is unable to benefit?
I end with a quote from the boss, which he wrote in the forward to this year's annual report. The Prince of Wales said:
Helping just one person to start their own business, thus taking them off unemployment benefit, saves the country thousands of pounds each year. But the benefits of our work go far beyond the merely financial. As I often see, starting a business not only restores the self-confidence of the individual, but can also play a part in helping to shore up the fabric of the community in which they live and work.
I hope that we can all say amen to that.
I say to the hon. Member for Dover, the debate is welcome. I hope that the whole country gets the message, and that many more young people hear about the scheme as a result of his initiative and, Madam Speaker, your choice today.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is a pleasure to he able to contribute to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on securing a debate on such an important and interesting subject.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover takes a keen interest in small businesses, and especially venture capital activities. As has been mentioned, he will be well aware that few venture capital businesses in the traditional sense can boast a success rate approaching that of the Prince's Youth Business trust. Of course, traditional venture capitalists charge enormously high rates of return on their investments, and the charity that we are talking about does it for nothing. There is a tremendous lesson to be learned from that alone.
We have in the Prince's Youth Business trust an excellent example of what can be done to stimulate economic activity, to create jobs and to give people a sense of purpose. I know that all Members who will contribute to the debate will echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said.
It is not simply an economic benefit, although the economic benefit is important, that the trust helps to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover has said–this was echoed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)–that small businesses are the backbone of economic activity in the country. Anything we can do to stimulate the creation and development of smaller businesses must be good news for the economy and for jobs.
We have a lower rate of unemployment for people between the ages of 18 and 25
in this country than is the case in many other countries in the European Community, but at 14 per cent. it is still too high. I have no doubt that one of the reasons why we have a lower rate than, for example, Spain, where the rate is 38 per cent., is the existence of schemes such as the one that we are discussing—imaginative schemes, designed to tackle the problem specifically and creatively.
This excellent trust does a huge amount of work to bring hope and purpose and to offer opportunity to those whose talents would frequently otherwise be wasted. I notice also that it is an efficient organisation, and that the Department for Employment last year gave the trust the accolade of saying that it was the most cost-effective job creation programme in the country. The trust can he proud of that.
The trust is also an excellent example of partnership in action. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned the various agencies—the local authorities, the training and enterprise councils, Government Departments of course, and the the European Union—which co-operate with the private sector to make it all happen. Obviously, central Government funding has been vital and welcome. I think I am right in saying that £20 million of central Government funding has been applied to the trust since its inception, and, as we know, a new arrangement has been put in place for the next three years, which will add another £10 million to what has been spent.
The success of the scheme depends crucially on the commitment of people and companies in the private sector, who are prepared to lend their time and expertise and give willingly to help young people to set up in business. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover pointed out that it is estimated that that assistance alone is worth about £5 million per year.
Three years ago, Robert Darrell started a business under the scheme with a £5,000 loan. His business now turns over £2.4 million per year and he believes:
The advisers provided by the Trust are as valuable as the loan".
I think that that is absolutely correct.
The scheme has caught the imagination of businesses in Surrey to such an extent that the clarion call by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to the private sector to become involved in the scheme is somewhat otiose. Until recently, a superfluity of business people wished to offer their help for free, but unfortunately their number was not matched by people wishing to participate in the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman, who spoke eloquently about the problems in his constituency, smiles wryly. It is true that, thankfully, Surrey does not suffer the same sorts of problems as his constituency. However, that is not to say that individuals do not need help. I hope that they will come forward and take advantage of the scheme.
It is in keeping with the spirit of the trust that, faced with the situation chat I have described in Surrey, instead of sitting around and doing nothing, advisers have gone into the community to encourage people to come forward with ideas for developing their businesses. To that end, a roadshow will be held in Caterham in my constituency this Friday. I look forward to attending it, and I hope that it is enormously successful.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If there are spare advisers in Surrey, they could travel to areas where there are not enough advisers to talk to the people there. They will be more than welcome in south London.

Mr. Ainsworth: I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's message to the advisers in Surrey. Bermondsey is not that far away, and I hope that something will come of his suggestion.


Every hon. Member has his or her favourite scheme, and a few from the Surrey area have caught my imagination. One involves a young man with cerebral palsy, who, with the help of the trust, has established a business duplicating musical cassettes. I am assured that that is not a breach of copyright, and that it is perfectly legal. That business is extremely successful, and it has given that young man access to a whole new field of activity, which would otherwise have remained closed to him.
Perhaps a more spectacular example is that of the young man from Kingston who, four years ago, visited his mother in hospital. He found that, like many people who are in hospital for any length of time, she was becoming very bored, and he brought a television to the hospital for her to use. That gave him an idea, and, with the help of the trust, he set up a company called Hospital Entertainment, which rents televisions to hospitals. The company has done extremely well, and it now turns over £750,000 per year. It recently acquired a subsidiary of Thorn EMI, which specialises in similar activities.
Less well known is the growing success of the trust abroad. Through Youth Enterprise Service International, the Prince's Youth Business Trust is exporting its expertise and its ideas to several countries, notably India and Hungary. I am happy to say that that enterprise is backed by the Foreign Office with money from the Overseas Development Administration programme.
The trust's activities are not only good news economically and socially—they fulfil an important social function which was perhaps the original idea behind the trust—but also an example of a great British idea which is being applied successfully overseas. I think that we should all be proud of that.
It is hard to think of a better idea. The trust is not the biggest charity in Britain, but it is targeted very carefully. It is difficult to think of any charity—particularly one associated with the unemployed—which has such a rewarding and beneficial effect on those who become involved with it. The trust's advantages are summed up by a member of the Surrey Prince's Youth Business Trust board, who said:
The Trust does so much to get young people doing things for themselves; and even if their businesses just potter along and they don't do much with them and eventually move on, they have so much more to offer prospective employers as a result of their experience".
The beneficiaries of the trust, the people they employ subsequently and every hon. Member have cause to be grateful to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for having the idea in the first place, and to all those who give of their time, energy and effort to ensure that the scheme is a success. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for giving the House the opportunity to put on record its appreciation for the tremendous work of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. I wish the trust every success in the future.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on his success in the ballot, and on introducing this morning's debate on the Prince's Youth Business Trust. I think that everyone agrees that the trust has done very valuable work over the

years in helping young unemployed people into self-employment. Most of the people the trust supports are in their twenties and have been unemployed for a considerable time.
The hon. Member for Dover referred to a survey conducted by the Department of Employment to gauge the trust's success rate. It found that more than two thirds of businesses created under the scheme are still operating three years later. That is a better success rate than that of most of the high street banks, which in most cases turned down those ideas in the first place. It makes one wonder about the ability of those who are running our banking system to gauge individuals' potential to contribute to economic growth.
Some 3,000 young people have benefited from the scheme in the last 12 months. As it is International Women's Day, I point out that 40 per cent. of that number were women, and I am pleased to say that that includes some of my constituents. About 24,000 people have taken advantage of the trust since its inception. That figure relates roughly to the number of long-term young unemployed people in Yorkshire, Humberside and the east Midlands. That gives us some idea of how much assistance the trust has provided.
The average cost to the Prince's Youth Business Trust of creating a job is £2,500, which is less than a third of the cost of keeping one unemployed person for a year. Clearly, in that context the trust is a major success. That cost pales into insignificance when compared with the cost of inward investment through regional selective assistance, and it shows how the country has benefited from that type of scheme.
I visited the Prince's Youth Business Trust exhibition marquee at the Rotherham show last year as a guest of the South Yorkshire region, and I was greatly impressed by the types of products on display.
I spoke to a man named Frank White, who started a business called Busy Bees in May 1991 after having been unemployed for 10 years. The business, which is run from the Westfield road craft park in Rotherham, makes garden ornaments. What I found most amazing about the company is that between 60 and 80 per cent. of its output, depending on the season, is exported to the United States of America.
Mr. White exports garden ornaments in the guise of alligators to America. They are constructed in three sections and are most impressive, although I would not want to have one in my garden. Mr. White is a success not only for himself, but also for the country and the local economy, because he employs two people in his business.
Since its inception in South Yorkshire, more than 700 people have benefited from the trust's work. In 1994, the trust helped 16 young people to start up 13 businesses in my constituency. Those businesses range from a mobile beauty therapist to tachograph services, and from a manufacturer of jewellery to a delicatessen in the village of Thurcroft. In the latter two cases, the individuals concerned had been out of work for 18 months, so that shows how successful the trust has been in combatting long-term youth unemployment in the area.
I welcome the fact that the Department of Employment now matches the donations that the trust receives from private sources. It is my understanding that, if private funding is raised, the money from the Government now represents about 20 per cent. of the trust's total funding.


Echoing what has been said by all hon. Members this morning, I very much hope that the Government's commitment will continue after the current end date of 1996.
I should also mention that the Government are a taker as well as a giver, for they have removed an important method of potential support for participants in the Prince's Youth Business Trust in recent months. I refer to the business start-up allowance that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. That problem has not arisen in his constituency, simply because the South London TEC has gone into liquidation. The Government have moved money away from supporting self-employment for the previously unemployed by that method.
When the business start-up allowance replaced the enterprise allowance scheme, a large number of unemployed people were dropped from the system, despite the fact that the "£1,000 of own capital" rule was removed.
In 1984, more than a quarter of those receiving the enterprise allowance had been out of work for a year or more and all were unemployed. By the first year of business start-up, just one in 10 of those receiving the allowance had been long-term unemployed, and a quarter of the people on the scheme were not classified as unemployed.
The withdrawal of the business start-up scheme as a nationally available measure is a distinct threat to the ability of the Prince's Youth Business Trust to perform effectively. That is not an idle remark. In South Yorkshire, for example, the effects of losing the business start-up allowance are already being felt.
In the past, applicants had been able to claim a business start-up allowance of £35 a week for the first year of trading. The South Yorkshire area manager, Mr. David Houghton, wrote to me recently:
We have been informed by the TECs in south Yorkshire that
the allowance
is now being withdrawn this month and not being replaced. Our information is that enterprise allowance is disappearing nationally except for a couple of areas in the North East.".
He continued:
In my view I believe that the removal of the … allowance will dramatically affect the number of people we help and we are already seeing signs of this in South Yorkshire. Throughout the last year the South Yorkshire Board have considered between 12 and 16 businesses each month, but in February 1995 only eight businesses were helped and this month possibly only five or six are being put forward.".
The impact of the Government's ending of the start-up allowance is giving some early warning signs to the South Yorkshire manager of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. If that is a reflection of the future, we shall have to reconsider the position.
A great percentage of the people the trust helps have been unemployed for six months or more, and have no collateral, so the guaranteed business start-up allowance of £35 a week was vital to them. It made the difference between taking the risk of trying to improve their standard of living and continuing to live on state benefits.
I know that there is common agreement about state benefits. Certainly, people with young children find it difficult to get into any work, let alone self-employment. The experience of the Prince's Youth Business Trust is

that, in the first few months of trading, the businesses rely on the £35 a week while they build up sales and a customer base.
My local area manager continued in his letter:
If these unemployed young people lose their initiative due to the curtailment of the allowance they will miss the opportunity the Trust gives them at a relatively low cost to become self-employed and will possibly remain unemployed at a yearly cost of thousands of pounds to the state.".
That cannot be right. The Government must put in place some alternative business encouragement measures to replace what we are about to lose or are losing.
The bottom line is that there is there is no real money on the table to encourage young unemployed people to start their own businesses. There is plenty of advice and training, but no hard cash. The cushion provided by the business start-up allowance has gone and the allowance itself has been subsumed into the general funds of the single regeneration budget.
My own borough, Rotherham, was successful in its bid for the single regeneration budget. I was looking at the submission and the outcome only yesterday. However, the only thing on offer under the single regeneration budget in Rotherham is advice to people who are already getting that advice through the Prince's Youth Business Trust. Under the circumstances, it seems that the allowance is being withdrawn without being replaced.
We have to ensure that such a cavalier attitude does not damage the operation of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. It is vital for the growth of local economies, and I hope that the Government will look hard at the possible consequences of the withdrawal of the business start-up allowance.
My own borough has only half the national average for self-employed people—the figure is only 4 per cent. I am clear in my mind that there is a great deal of scope for the growth of self-employment as a means of getting rid of long-term unemployed in my constituency, but it will not happen if people cannot get the assistance they have had in the past.
In the next few weeks, I hope that the Government will look hard at the results from the Prince's Youth Business Trust about how many start-ups are occurring, and if the withdrawal of business start-up allowance from long-term unemployed people has created a problem for the trust, I hope that the Government take measures to remedy it. Like everybody else, I am sure that they would like the trust to go from strength to strength in its work for our young people in the economy.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on obtaining the debate, and on raising the important matters that we have been discussing. He was quite right to draw attention to his own track record of support for small businesses which is well recognised in the House, and on which he also deserves to be congratulated.
I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that today is an unique occasion, and that we have not discussed the Prince's Youth Business Trust before. I hope that we will not leave it quite so long in future before we return to such an important subject.


I think that the interest caused by the business trust was exemplified by the number of hon. Members who have been present in the Chamber during the debate. I mention in particular the hon. Member for Belfast South (Rev. Martin Smyth), my hon. Friends the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). I now see my hon. Friends the Members for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). It is a tribute to the Prince's Youth Business Trust that so many hon. Members are present this morning to hear about its excellent work and to pay their own tributes to it.
Certainly, the PYBT carries out excellent work in helping disadvantaged young people to enter self-employment and set up their own businesses. Today's debate provides us all with a welcome opportunity to publicise that work.
The trust was founded in 1986. Since then, it has helped some 25,000 young people to set up or expand more than 19.000 businesses. It does that, as we have heard during the debate, through providing grants or loans and in particular through its volunteer network of business advisers. Those advisers are assigned to particular young people and act as mentors, giving help or advice for a couple of years or so.
I find it very heartening that there are currently some 4,500 volunteers, most of whom have themselves started businesses. They therefore know exactly what is involved, and are prepared to give young people the benefit of their time and expertise. More than 2,000 volunteers are needed each year to keep up the momentum, and I understand that the Prince of Wales recently wrote to every existing adviser asking him or her to recruit another volunteer. I wish the trust every success in that campaign.
As has been acknowledged today, we in the Government are extremely supportive of the trust's work. Indeed, we have provided substantial financial help over the years. In November 1988, on his 40th birthday, the Prince of Wales launched an appeal to raise £40 million from the private sector, and the then Secretary of State for Employment, Lord Young, promised to match that pound for pound. So far, we have given some £21 million in accordance with that promise, and our total maximum commitment currently stands at £31 million.
More recently, in March last year, we agreed to provide further funds focused on the more disadvantaged, especially the long-term unemployed and the disabled. Our maximum commitment over the next three years is £10 million, as has already been pointed out. That includes welcome contributions from the Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices.
Our contributions are designed to help the PYBT to maximise the funds it receives front the private sector. Both the schemes, which run alongside each other, are paid only on a matched-fund basis, pound for pound. At the trust's suggestion, the new scheme is also output-related: we pay £2,500 for each young person who is recruited and who survives for 15 months in business, which demonstrates the confidence that both the trust and the Government have in those young people. All that helps the trust to raise substantial private sector contributions to the cost of its work.

Mr. Hartley Booth: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the interaction between the House of Commons and the trust. Is she aware that, last year, the Prince and his trust helped an all-party project known as "Return Ticket"? Long-term unemployed people were sent 30,000 hooks to give them hope, which has been afforded not least by the success stories emanating from the trust.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful both for my hon. Friend's interest in the trust and for his reminder of that important initiative.
The free advice that the trust gives each year is estimated to be worth about £30 million. Because of the leverage that our funds ensure, it hopes to double the number of young people that it supports as a result of the new scheme.
I am delighted to say that our research suggests that the young people who start businesses generally go on to set up thriving concerns: two thirds are still in business after two to three years, and a high proportion of those who sadly cease trading say that their experience with the PYBT has helped significantly to make it easier for them to find employment—or, indeed, to continue in some other form of self-employment.
I pay particular tribute to the work that the trust does in Kent, not least because I was recently privileged to go to a reception for young people who had set up businesses. I particularly remember a young man called Andrew Harsley, who had founded a very successful business making cable ties—perhaps because he was kind enough to give me a bunch of flowers tied up with one of his cable ties. I thought that that was a very nice gesture, and I wanted to put it on record and thank Mr. Harsley today.
The sheer diversity of the trust's businesses is amazing. They include both the more obvious concerns such as fashion, hairdressing and manufacturing, and unusual businesses such as sheep pregnancy testing, pet food delivery services and surfing. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have given many examples of specific initiatives, and paid tribute to them.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made an important contribution to the debate. He mentioned the fall-out from the circumstances of the South Thames training and enterprise council. As he will know, we are arranging for the TEC's functions to be taken over, but as a result of what he has said today I shall find out what specific arrangements have been made in relation to the PYBT and write to him as soon as I can.
I hope that the hon. Member will take that as an indication of the seriousness with which the Government view the trust, and our awareness of the importance of maintaining continuity. I take the hon. Gentleman's point: continuity is all, especially in the early stages.
The speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was unusually emollient, which is in itself a tribute to the trust. It clearly has considerable appeal for all parties in the House. I do not think, however, that the hon. Gentleman's portrayal of our treatment of the business start-up scheme was altogether fair. He implied that it had been withdrawn. Our evaluation in 1991 suggested that some 80 per cent. of PYBT-supported businesses were in receipt of business start-up allowances, which did of course tend to increase unit costs from the Government's perspective.


The funds from the business start-up scheme have been transferred to the single regeneration budget, but that does not mean that they have been withdrawn. The budget will directly support some 18,000 new businesses in 1995-96; moreover, all projects supported by it will tend to help new businesses.

Mr. Barron: Is the Minister saying that the transfer of the money to the single regeneration budget will give those who benefit from the trust's work a weekly allowance for the first 12 months of the existence of their businesses?

Miss Widdecombe: I am saying that it is wrong to suggest that the fact that the business start-up scheme now functions as part of the single regeneration budgets means that it has ceased to function at all.
Some £40 million will be available in 1996–97 for the second round of bidding. That will build up to £200 million in the following year. Provision for the single regeneration budget over the next three years accounts for a substantial sum, of which more than £800 million will be provided for new projects.
It is for local partnerships to decide what priority to give to small business support. There is plenty of scope for the PYBT, and for other concerns, to work with local partners, as it is already doing in many parts of the country. I do not share the rather gloomy view of the hon. Member for Rother Valley: The change in procedures does not mean that we are any less committed to looking after small businesses.
Let me again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, and also congratulate the trust on the diversity of its work. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, many women, disabled people and ethnic minorities have benefited from that work. The trust's scope is wide, encompassing both rural and urban areas, and the contribution that it makes, not only to the well-being and the economic prosperity of young people but to the well-being and the economic prosperity of the country is well worthy of the recognition that it has received today.

Women's Wages

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Today is International Women's Day and it is right to celebrate that with a debate about an issue that is dear to the hearts of many women, who comprise 51 per cent. of the people of this country. It is worth saying at the outset that there arc at least 4 million low-paid women in this country. We define low pay as being below two thirds of the male median earnings.
That is not an insignificant number. Divided equally, on a geographical basis, it would mean that there are 6,000 low-paid women in every constituency in the United Kingdom. However, the geographical distribution of low pay is not completely even. In inner London, only 18 per cent. of women are low-paid, while in west Yorkshire the figure is 58 per cent.—a much higher figure. East Anglia, the part of the world that I represent, is often seen as more prosperous, but in fact 54 per cent. of women in East Anglia are low paid. That is perhaps a surprising figure, but East Anglia has low-paid employment in agriculture, hotel and catering, cleaning, the health service, social services, and many other jobs traditionally done by women.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Lady is saying that women earn less in certain parts of the country than in others. She is also a well-known supporter of the national minimum wage. If the national minimum wage were introduced, would there be a regional differences in the minimum wage?

Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point that I was making. I said that the distribution of low pay was different in different regions. I will come to the minimum wage later. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I reach that point.
One of the rather surprising things—or perhaps it is not so surprising, given the national situation—is that in Cambridge and the surrounding areas there is a great deal of high-tech industry, but although people working in those industries are often highly paid, on the whole women are not benefiting from that high-tech industry which has grown so successfully in and around Cambridge over the past 15 years. I am pleased to say, however, that Doctor Elizabeth Garnsey of the Judge Institute in Cambridge is embarking on a study to determine why so few women are employed in the high-tech industries in the Cambridge region. It will be interesting to see the results of that study.
Much of the ground was covered in yesterday's debate, when Ministers and Conservative Members spent a great deal of time telling us of the tremendous improvements that had been made, and it is true that for some women life has got better over the past few years. There are more women in professional jobs, there are more women at the top of their professions and there are more women Members of Parliament, but that has not been achieved as a result of Government policies; it has been achieved despite the Conservative Government.
A good way of illustrating that is to look at how the number of women Members of Parliament has increased. It has increased because the Labour party has taken positive steps to improve the chances for women in our


party, and we are continuing to take those steps, which bring nothing but criticism and carping from Conservative Members.

Ms Angela Eagle: We all welcome the increase in the numbers of women who manage to rise to the top of their professions, but does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that just 5 per cent. of professors in higher education and 6 per cent. of QCs and High Court judges are women is not exactly a startling achievement as we approach the end of the 20th century?

Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Although some progress has been made, the situation is far from satisfactory and certainly does not merit the kind of complacency that we have seen from Front-Bench Conservative Members.

Ms Jean Corston: My hon. Friend referred to the Labour party's determined efforts to ensure that our electoral representation in the House reflects Great Britain, where half the population is female. Does she not find the schizophrenia of Conservative Members
on this issue fascinating when they attack—[Interruption.]—and laugh at the fact that the Labour party has quotas for women but fail to acknowledge that the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), is frequently given permission to be away from the House to try to persuade constituency associations to comply with the Conservative party's target of 50 per cent for women candidates? Is not the only difference the fact that the Labour party is serious about it and the Conservatives are willing, the means?

Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Conservatives are trying to improve on their 63 women candidates in the past election compared with Labour's 138.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Even hon. Ladies must take their scats. The debate is about wage levels for women. It is not really about party politics and which party has which candidates.

Mrs. Campbell: As women Members of Parliament are perhaps more highly paid than other women, an increase in their numbers will help in a small way to raise wage levels for women.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hor. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait until I have made a further point.
If we define low pay as less than two thirds of a full-time median wage—not just men's wages, but taking men and women's wages together—we can compare ourselves with our European partners.

Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell: Not at the moment.
In Belgium, for example, which has clear minimum wage legislation, less than 5 per cent. of women come into the category of low-paid. In the Netherlands, which

also has minimum wage legislation, although perhaps not quite so good, only I I per cent. of women come within the definition of low-paid. In Ireland, however, the figure rises dramatically to 18 per cent., in Spain it is 19 per cent. and the UK tops the European Union tree with 20 per cent. That says something important about the effect of a minimum wage on low pay for women.

Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Lady specify what she is saying in quantitative terms? She has defined low pay as being two thirds of male median earnings. What are male median earnings in quantitative terms? Unless we know that figure, talking about low pay and linking it with some kind of poverty makes no sense whatever.

Mrs. Campbell: I have the figures and I can inform the hon. Gentleman that, according to the 1994 wages survey, male median earnings were around £300 per week, so two thirds of male median earnings is a little over £200 a week. The hon. Gentleman can find those figures quite easily if he would like to look them up. In the last case, I was talking about two thirds of the full-time median wage, taking both men's and women's pay together.
Yesterday the Trades Union Congress launched a new document, "The New Divide". It is a study of the pay of part-time workers. The TUC says something that is important for us all to take on hoard, and we should celebrate the contribution that part-time workers make to the economy. Many men and women want to work part time because of family responsibilities, others perhaps want to study at the same time or they may be caring for elderly parents. There are all sorts of reasons why people want to work part time. We should encourage that if it is what people want to do. But why should part-time work mean low pay and worse conditions than those of people in full-time employment?
It is shocking that half a million part-time workers, mainly women, earn less than £2.49 an hour. That is disgraceful, and it is an indictment of the Government's complete lack of policy on eanings and incomes. Many workers earn less than the national insurance threshold, which is currently £57 per week. Those workers not only take home low pay but lose a number of contributory benefits, especially pensions, so those who are poor at work tend to be poor in old age as well.
In the context of social justice, it is obviously important for part-time workers to be treated in the same way as full-time workers. With more people choosing to work part time, it is becoming more essential to treat people equally. The Government have an appalling record and have continually tried to block part-time workers' rights. Following the House of Lords ruling in March 1994 that the Government were acting illegally in denying employment rights to part-time workers, in December last year the Government were forced to give equal rights to part-timers.
The Secretary of State for Employment last year blocked European directives on parental leave which would have been of enormous help to men and women in employment. That now has to be introduced under the social protocol, which excludes the UK and means that our workers are not able to benefit from it.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has produced a good report on low pay and women. The report identifies that low pay is associated with having children and/or caring responsibilities and having a part-time job. I can


illustrate how that affects ordinary people from the letters of one of my constituents. She is a highly qualified woman with a degree in microbiology. In her letter to me she describes how she had worked while living with the father of her two children. He became violent and threw her out. As a single parent she was able to draw £600 a month in benefit.
However, when she tried to go back to her job, which was quite well paid compared with most of the jobs that women are able to get, the loss of benefit and the cost of child care reduced her income from £600 to £450 a month. Not surprisingly, with two children, that woman found that quite impossible to live on. She wrote to me pointing out how ridiculous it was that the Government were paying her £600 a month to stay on benefit rather than £150 a month to be in work. That is the amount that she would have needed to bring her income up to what she had while on benefit. That is absurd.
It is essential to increase opportunities for women by increasing the provision of low-cost publicly funded child care and abolishing the anomaly by which people can reclaim tax on their secretary's wages but not on child-minding costs. It is no coincidence that, on the whole, men employ secretaries and women employ child minders, and it is clear discrimination that the one is allowable against tax while the other is not.

Mr. Peter Butler: It would be discourteous to allow the debate to go much further without congratulating the hon. Lady and her lady colleagues on having overcome the ingrained male chauvinism within her party to which she referred earlier. Not one male Labour Member is in the Chamber or has been here since the start of the debate. Does the hon. Lady feel that that is a symptom of the fact that perhaps there is still a long way to go? There is an empty space where one male Labour Member was sitting, so I apologise for being incorrect in that, but certainly no one has bothered to stay. The one who was here left as soon as the hon. Lady started to speak, which was grossly discourteous.

Mrs. Campbell: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) has slipped out for a few moments and will be hack. He was here at the beginning of the debate. The Opposition can celebrate the fact that we have enough women to keep the debate going without falling back on our male colleagues. The Conservative party would dearly love to solve the problem of having too few women hon. Members, but it has no idea how to go about it.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell: I have given way a number of times and I will give way to the hon. Lady later. At the moment I should like to make some further progress.
It is important to look at ways of increasing access to existing child care, and we also need to increase the amount of it. I am pleased that in my constituency we have been able to put together a project involving the city and county councils, the local employment agency office, the training and enterprise councils from Cambridge and Greater Peterborough, the Cambridge Training and Development Organisation, which is a private training body, and the Benefits Agency.
We have formed a working party to look at ways to make child care and work more accessible to those who wish to return to work after a period of being at home and

looking after children. We have decided to have points around the city to give information through the form of a one-stop shop so that people can find out where child care and training opportunities are to he found, where they are likely to find a job and what difference that will make to their benefits. That is to say, they can discover what their income will be at the end of the day.
We plan to make that service accessible through a computer-based system which will, of course, be linked to the information super-highway. I am pleased that the project has attracted all-party support in Cambridge. Of course, we cannot pursue it without money, and I am pleased that all the major banks, plus Philips Telecom, some of the Cambridge colleges and two training and enterprise councils, have contributed substantial sums to get the scheme off the ground. That shows how important people think it is to have good quality child care and to give people proper access to it to enable them to get hack to work.
Labour party policy on the minimum wage has been mentioned. The statistics show that it is essential to have a minimum wage to help the 3 million British workers who earn less than £3.50 an hour. Four out of five low-paid people are women. We have only to look at the stories of people on very high salaries to realise that there are not many women among them. Mr. Cedric Brown springs to mind immediately, and the National Grid chairman recently managed to effect a pay deal worth £2 million. There is no chance of that person being a woman. A 28-year-old man on £200,000 a year managed to break a hank but did not contribute much to the economy in the process.
The Low Pay Unit has come up with examples of people being offered extremely low pay, not in a covert way but by advertisement in Government job centres. There are examples of shop workers being offered £1.66 an hour and hairdressers being offered £1.43 an hour. How could anyone survive on such wages? They are totally disgraceful.
Despite the rhetoric of Conservative Members, economists in Britain and America who have studied low pay have concluded that a statutory minimum wage does not cost jobs and may even increase employment. That is what the research is showing. Time and again, we hear Conservative Members say that we must not let workers price themselves out of jobs. Let us consider, however, what happened in 1990 when the United States Government raised the national minimum wage to the equivalent of approximately £2.70 an hour. Despite everyone's efforts, study after study found that that was effective in raising the income of some of the poorest people in America, and that it had done so without jobs being lost.
A further example is the east coast state of New Jersey, where local legislators raised the minimum wage to $5.05 an hour, compared with the state of Pennsylvania where the minimum wage was only $4.25 an hour. If what the Conservative party is saying is correct, one would have expected jobs to increase in Pennsylvania and to decrease in New Jersey, but that did not happen. Economists examined one sector of the industry—fast food restaurants, where wages are traditionally low—in both states. They found that employment had fallen in cheap—rate Pennsylvania but risen in higher-rate New


Jersey—the reverse of what the Conservatives claim would happen. The research simply does not bear out the points that they make.

Mr. Spring: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the United States the rate of female participation in the labour market is significantly lower than in the United Kingdom and that the percentage of earnings gained by females in the United States does not compare favourably with that in the UK?

Mrs. Campbell: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman's point refers to the minimum wage, but it is true that there are far more fragmented part-time jobs in the United States than in the UK.

Ms Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are not interested in the research, that they do not consider it and that they do not care? They believe ideologically in low pay. They cannot stand the idea of a minimum wage. They attack it constantly because they crudely and ideologically believe in market forces. They cannot believe that paying people a decent rate is a proper social policy, and therefore they are not listening to the research that my hon. Friend has outlined.

Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She is right. If Conservative Members are not interested in the facts, they should stop making comments which are not true.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell: I am not giving way again as I wish to make some progress.
Low pay tends to increase staff turnover and to make it much more difficult to recruit staff, so firms often lose business because they are unable to meet orders. They also face much higher training costs, because a constant turnover of staff means that they will have to train people more frequently. Firms which pay low wages do not do well. Some of the squeals that we have heard from employers in the past few weeks should be taken with a pinch of salt, because the evidence does not bear out what they are saying.
Since the Government abolished wages councils, which set minimum rates for workers in the retail, hotel, hairdressing and other trades, hourly wage rates have decreased. According to Government theories, when wage rates go down we should naturally expect an increase in vacancies, but that has not happened. The Low Pay Unit found that, after wages councils were abolished, employment in the hotel trade decreased. [Interruption.]

Ms Eagle: Did my hon. Friend pick up the little sedentary comment from the Conservative Benches—that jobs fell in the hotel trade because of the recession? Conservative Members seem to think that it is acceptable to have lower wages and fewer jobs.

Mrs. Campbell: For the past two years, the Government have been telling us that we are coming out of recession, that we are in a boom period, that we should all expect to be feeling much better and that there should be a feel-good factor, but if they are now saying teat we are in recession, that directly contradicts what they said previously.
No other country is considering abandoning the minimum wage and the constraints that we had under the wages councils. Not even Newt Gingrich is proposing the abolition of the minimum wage in the United States. We should recognise that minimum wages encourage people to work instead of staying at home on benefit. We want to encourage that, and we thought that the Conservative party was in favour of it.
We have one of the worst records in Europe on women's wage levels, and poverty at work leads to poverty in old age. We need to improve conditions and pay for part-timers, and we should not block European directives intended to help them. We desperately need to ensure access to good quality publicly funded child care, so that women can work without worrying about their children. Because the Government have so resolutely turned their face against a minimum wage, which has been widely adopted in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, we need to ensure electoral victory for a Labour Government, who will introduce a minimum wage and increase opportunities for all women.

Mr. Richard Spring: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), my near neighbour, on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject.
I remember the hon. Lady's maiden speech some three years ago, as I was in the Chamber at the time. Although it was a good maiden speech, I recall her painting a gloomy picture of life in her constituency. I hope that she will acknowledge that all over East Anglia, and most notably in Cambridge, dramatic falls in unemployment have begun to take place. That is to be welcomed. Male and female workers alike have benefited from that. East Anglia is enjoying the fastest rate of economic recovery of any region in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that, in the past three years, job opportunities for females and female participation in the labour market have expanded markedly, both in her constituency and in East Anglia.
The hon. Lady is right to refer to the gap between male and female earnings. In many respects, that is not acceptable. Members of Parliament are paid the same amount, whether they are male or female, and it would be preposterous if it were otherwise. That principle should be extended across many other spheres of employment. The Labour party's policies, however, are destined to destroy the very job opportunities which have caused so many women to make such tremendous and remarkable strides in employment since 1979.
Of all the European Union countries, only the UK has a lower unemployment rate for women—currently 4.6 per cent.—than for men. Compared with the larger countries in the European Union, the participation rate by women in the UK labour market is at the highest level.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the number of hours that women work in Britain is the lowest in the European Union? That means that many women are working fewer hours than they would prefer because of the constraints of lack of child care and non-availability of decently paid employment.

Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady misses the point entirely. The purpose of a dynamic and flexible economy is to create job opportunities. The policies that she espouses would destroy job opportunities and the enormous progress that women have made in the labour market in the past 15 years. It cannot be denied that there is a gap, but it has been closing partly because of legislation and partly because cultural attitudes to female employment have rightly moved on. I welcome that, but what is needed is a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market and a Government committed to widening choice and opportunity for everyone. The surge in flexible working has been greatly welcomed by women employees and we are seeing the fruits of that flexibility.
Let us examine whether that supposition is backed by the facts. In 1970, average gross weekly earnings for women were 54.3 per cent. of men's earnings. By 1994, the figure had risen to 72.2 per cent., and the figure for full-time hourly earnings is now 79 per cent. That is due to an expansion—both relative and absolute—of female earnings.

Ms Corston: The hon. Gentleman talks about the desirability of flexibility in the labour market. Will he explain the desirability of zero-hours employment contracts, which are increasing especially in the shop and hotel sector, whereby employers do not contract to provide any hours of work for employees but employees have to be available for work at all times? Whose opportunities are increased by such contracts?

Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. In my constituency, where employment has increased substantially and where the tourism and hotel sectors arc expanding, unemployment has dropped to 4.6 per cent. precisely because of such flexibility. If we had the regulated labour market and total lack of flexibility advocated by the Labour party, there would be no such employment opportunities and unemployment in my constituency would double.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spring: I will deal with the increase in female earnings and then give way to the hon. Lady.
In the four or five years since 1990, female earnings have risen by 30 per cent., compared with a rise of 23 per cent. in men's earnings. Again, Labour's policies would destroy that growth because of the ossification of opportunities that would certainly arise. The female activity rate continues to rise while the male activity rate continues to fall.
An article in The Guardian—so it must be true—written by Edward Balls in September last year stated:
Since the early seventies female employment has risen by a fifth, while male employment has fallen by the same percentage.
He is the same Mr. Edward Balls who, significantly, contributed to the intellectual thrust of the Labour party's economic policy—namely, the introduction of a neo-classical endogenous growth theory and symbiotic relationships—so what he says must he of great interest to the Labour party.

Ms Eagle: It was not a neo-classical endogenous growth theory, but a post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory

which recognises that labour markets and the supply and demand curve which so obsesses free-market Conservatives simply do not represent the real world.

Mr. Spring: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's attempt to clarify Labour's economic policy. During the years that I spent at university learning about economics and hearing a catholic spread of ideas, at no time did I hear a theory along those lines. It has nothing to do with the real world and made the Labour party a laughing stock.
It is most impressive that female self-employment has risen by 80 per cent. since 1981. The hon. Member for Cambridge will know that the small business sector in East Anglia is one of the most important elements of growth in our part of Britain. Our economy is very much based on small business. In the late 1980s, a considerable part of the expansion in employment during the boom period was in the small business sector. The fact that so many more women are deciding to become self-employed in that sector is greatly to be welcomed.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that one in four small businesses are now started by women, who are making a considerable success of them? Indeed, banks tell me that they would rather give a loan to a woman because they know that she will be successful.

Mr. Spring: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I am sure that she is correct. I hope that in future there will be many more women entrepreneurs who will start and build seedcorn businesses like the Body Shop and many others that have been so commercially successful.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge agrees that the key to employment success and higher wages for women lies in education. There is a clear relationship between professional success and education. When the Labour party was in office, one in eight young people went on to higher education, a figure that was regarded as a scandal in the 1970s. It is now one in three, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge welcomes that.
Below university level, we find that, in 1979, under a Labour Government, 44 per cent. of A-level entrants were female, but the figure has risen to 52 per cent. under the Conservatives. In 1979, 40 per cent. of full-time students in higher education were female; today, 48 per cent. are female and their number is growing. If one adds the figure for those in further education, more than half the students are female. In the same period, three fifths of those involved in further education are female compared to two fifths when Labour were in power.
I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes the tremendous progress that has been made and is anxious to share the following information. At Cambridge university in the 1970s, one in four undergraduates were female, but the figure is now 43 per cent. and rising. All this shows what a dynamic, open and growing economy is doing to create opportunities for women.


There is clear evidence of increasing and very welcome professional success among women. An article in the Financial Times of 22 August 1994 carried the headline "Women 'beating men for top jobs'". It stated:
Women prove more successful than men when they are competing for senior management positions, statistics released by an executive recruitment consultancy show.
The survey, which focused on 85 posts in the £30,000 to £75,000 salary range handled by the London office of NB Selection, found that from the shortlisted candidates for the posts one in four women, compared with one in six men, secured management positions.
The company also examined the sample of 31 vacancies covering 3,000 applicants and found that, proportionately, women again fared better. Some 22 per cent. of women applicants secured interviews compared with 10 per cent. of male applicants.
I am sure that everyone welcomes the considerable professional success at management level that is now manifesting itself and which will certainly continue to boost female earnings.

Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is painting an extremely rosy picture, but is he aware that the recent trend towards more women in management has gone into reverse? A recent survey shows that 9.5 per cent. of managers in 1993 were women, compared with 10.3 per cent. in 1992. Only 2.8 per cent. of directors were women. Those figures are taken from the Institute of Management survey of 1994. The hon. Gentleman must admit that there are large problems.

Mr. Spring: >: From the figures that I have given, the hon. Lady will accept that progress for women in professional life is strong. I entirely welcome that, and I hope that it will go further. However, I do not especially want to bandy around endless surveys.
I come next to the employment forecast for women to the year 2000, put out by no less an organisation than the Equal Opportunities Commission, working together with the Institute for Employment Research. The report shows that the proportion of women in the labour force has increased steadily despite the last recession. Using a forecasting model which relates activity rates to various socio-economic variables, the author of the report finds that
women are likely to increase their share in almost all occupations, particularly in the managerial, professional and associated professional areas where they are currently under-represented.
For example, the proportion of female corporate managers is predicted to grow from 30.5 per cent. in 1991 to 39.6 per cent. by 2000. Over the same period the female proportion of science- and engineering-associated professionals is expected to increase from 22.5 per cent. to 29.9 per cent. and in other associated professional occupations from 38.9 per cent. to 44 per cent.
I hope that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) agrees that such a report, produced by an impartial body, is especially welcome.

Ms Glenda Jackson: What was markedly lacking in the list of figures that the hon. Gentleman shared with the House was any mention of wages. Can he furnish us with those figures and perhaps with details of the differentials between men's and women's wages which still exist in every area of working life?

Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. There is a gap, but it is closing. There is a direct correlation

between education, professional accomplishment and wage levels. The point that I am trying to make is that, as more women rightly occupy senior positions, the gap will close. It is now closing rapidly as a result of a mixture of legislation and a dynamic economy which produces growth opportunities for everyone in the labour market.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman agrees, I presume, with his Government's view that low wages create more jobs. On the point to which he has devoted so many figures, does he therefore believe that the way to close the gap between male and female employment in managerial positions is to lower wages in those positions'?

Mr. Spring: I believe that, in a growing and dynamic economy which provides job opportunities, we shall see general standards of living rising. Those living standards will be based on an increase in average earnings in a non-inflationary economy. That is to be wholly welcomed.
Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched in 1991 his well-known initiative to increase the proportion of women appointed by Government to public bodies, the proportion of women holding public appointments has risen from 5 per cent. to 28 per cent. The Government are committed to equality and to a comprehensive legal framework. We have a legislative foundation. We have seen clear evidence that women are advancing, rightly, at all levels. We have seen clear evidence that the gap in earnings is closing and will continue to close, and I wholly welcome that.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spring: I must conclude.
At the heart of this remains one point that is crystal clear. All that I have described can happen only if we have an open, free and dynamic marketplace economy providing the opportunity. What we do not need is the imposition of a social chapter, which will destroy jobs, and a minimum wage which has had catastrophic employment consequences for both men and women across the European Union. The way that I have described is the way in which women can advance, and that is the way in which, under a Conservative Government, that is now happening.

Mr. David Chidgey: I am conscious that there is limited time in the debate so I shall be brief, if hon. Members will allow me.
There are some areas in which there is a common awareness of the difficulties women face. We all recognise that women have made great strides over the past 20 years and that more women are now in paid employment than at any other time. The gap between male and female wages has narrowed. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) said, women now take up more than half of all further and higher education places. We can say that for some women, especially young, childless women from white, well-educated middle-income backgrounds, equality of opportunity has become a reality, but for many others, the old injustices and inequalities remain and new problems limiting their choice have arisen.


On average, women who work full time are still paid only 79 per cent. of the pay of their male counterparts. A large majority of those who earn less than half the national average wage are women. The large majority of pensioners on income support are women. Some 90 per cent. of all lone parents are women. The vast majority of employees with the primary responsibility for caring for children, caring for the elderly and caring for the sick are women. Women make up 44 per cent. of the United Kingdom work force, but only 20 per cent. of our managers and a mere 2 per cent. of senior executives.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that there are no women chief police constables?

Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Indeed, I share her disappointment. That point illustrates the problem of discrimination to which I shall come later.
The Low Pay Unit recently reported that half of all full-time women workers and three quarters of all part-time women workers earned less than 68 per cent. of the average wage. We heard earlier that some 4 million women earn low wages. The latest figures from the Low Pay Unit tell us that 6.5 million women are earning low wages. Two thirds of low-paid workers are women. More than 70 per cent. of those earning less than £3 an hour are women. Women are the primary victims of low-wage exploitation. I am sorry about the continual recounting of figures, but I believe that they illustrate the fact that women are the victims in this respect.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that women would far rather have a job than not? Does he also accept that Britain has the second-highest proportion of working women in Europe? We are second only to Denmark. Does he agree that a woman with a job, even a part-time job, is better off than a woman who has no money at all?

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Lady repeats points made earlier, which is a waste of the time of the House. I do not believe that we should expect anybody, woman or man, to work for wages that are akin to slavery. I do not believe that this country should move towards a third-world economy. It is women who are exploited, because they have fewer choices.
We need to have a flexible, but firm, approach to low wages. We need to establish a regionally based minimum hourly rate in determining wages. We need a minimum hourly rate which is agreed by employers and by representatives of trade and commerce, working closely with a low pay commission. We need to protect the vulnerable from the unscrupulous; women are usually at the sharp end of that.
Low wages are not the only problem. Our tax and benefits system discriminates against women. We need reforms to present going to work as a genuine option. We need to remove the mechanisms in the tax and benefits systems that reduce economic independence for women and stifle opportunity. We should remove the lower rate of national insurance contribution on earnings of less than £3,445. We could take 50,000 low-paid workers out of the tax system altogether by that simple move. That would help mainly women.

Ms Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's proposal is well meant, but has he looked at the lower

threshold? Something like 3 million people, mostly women, are trapped beneath it with no entitlement to pensions or anything else. It becomes an incentive to employers to pay their workers wages that are just below that threshold and to keep them low so that those workers never receive any national insurance benefits or other entitlements, which is a real problem.

Mr. Chidgey: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. That is one of the basic reasons why we need to look closely at our tax and benefits systems to try to avoid such exploitation.
On that very point, many women's employment is severely disrupted, usually because they have taken on the responsibility of bringing up children at some stage during their lives. They therefore have incomplete contributory records, which, of course, lead to all the disadvantages of the future loss of entitlements. We need to move towards phasing in a system of benefits and pensions which are paid on the basis of residence and to merge the national insurance contributions into the same tax base as income tax. That may begin to overcome some of the problems mentioned.
We need to examine how carers are treated. Changes in the contributory principle would help to remove some of the benefit system's built-in disadvantages to carers. We also need to consider training provision. Training for work and increasing employability are vital, and improvements in education, training and skill levels would bring the greatest benefit to the low-paid, who, again, are mainly women.
I shall sum up briefly, because I know that there is little time.

Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman mentioned training. Does he agree that the representation of women on training and enterprise council boards is lamentable and that there are very few women throughout the entire TEC system? Does he agree that it would be much better to have better representation of women on TEC boards?

Mr. Chidgey: TEC boards need to be reviewed because there is widespread under-representation, not only of women. I am particularly concerned that small firms are inadequately represented on TEC boards, yet they often need the most help, liaison and dialogue about training needs. Many small firms have never engaged in training, and their under-representation is a great flaw in the system.
Most importantly, we need to improve anti-discrimination policies. Better child care provision, improvements to the tax and benefits system, minimum hourly rates, improvements in training, and so on are all peripheral if the central issue of discrimination is not tackled. Replacement of the Sex Discrimination Acts and the Equal Pay Act 1970 by an equal treatment Act would help to counter all discrimination, unintentional as well as intentional. Employers should take responsibility for ensuring that the inequalities in pay and conditions are not the result of discrimination.
The approach to policies that I have tried to outline in my short speech would ensure that, in future, all employees were paid according to the quality of their work, not according to their gender. We need to help ensure that the structural imbalances which prevent women from getting and retaining the sort of work that they want are removed. Women should have the same


opportunities as men. The aim of the Liberal Democrats is not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. We do not propose special treatment for women, but equal treatment.

Lady Olga Maitland: I particularly warmly welcome the fact that this debate is taking place at all. I say that because I have worked all my adult life and I have never felt in any way discriminated against by wage levels because of my sex. I have worked as a secretary and I have never felt discriminated against. The Labour party asks why there are not more male secretaries. I have not had a single male apply to be my secretary.

Ms Eagle: I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to know that I have a male secretary and he is extremely good.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am delighted for the hon. Lady and I am sure that lie gives her excellent service.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Discrimination is not left to the individual to feel or to recognise. We are arguing that the discrimination from which millions of women suffer is set in place by an employer who makes a distinction between a male and a female employee. Women are discriminated against quite deliberately. They earn less money. It is not a feeling or a sense; it is a fact.

Lady Olga Maitland: Women earn less money partly because of the kind of job that they do. From my experience in whatever area I worked, whether in Fleet street as a junior reporter or as a head of a department, I know that I always had the same salary as everybody else. The Government are concerned about the iniquities which may arise, which is why they set up the Equal Opportunities Commission and, indeed, pour £5 million

Ms Short: It was set up by a Labour Government.

Lady Olga Maitland: Oh, well, I withdraw that remark. None the less, this Government pour £5 million a year into the commission to ensure that women get a fair deal.
This is a very artificial debate. It is the result of the spin doctors in the Labour party trying hard to get the women's vote. They say to themselves, "Ah, the women's issue." It is all meticulously planned, the ball is set rolling down the road and the Labour women, if I may say so, just do as they are bid.
More than that, the Labour party is saying, "Let's attract the women's vote by offering baubles." It is looking, for instance, at different forms of tax relief. Indeed, I read with the greatest interest an article in She magazine, which featured the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said that he would look at tax relief for child care—in other words, a nannies charter. I am sure that the poor working woman would not be very happy to find that her increased taxes are paying for nannies for wealthy women.
I regard this debate as the product of a rather cynical ploy that will not work. The Labour party totally underestimates the intelligence of the British woman. We are not that easily fooled. The women who come to see

me in my surgery do not talk about the issues that the women in the Labour party raise or about sexist issues. They say that they want a stable, sustainable economy, which is dynamic and which will give them jobs for themselves and their husbands, which we all want.
They welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 500,000 over the past two years and they welcome the fact that in Sutton the number of unemployed people is barely 300 above the peak unemployment level of 1986. We should be looking at the real issues of how we are helping women.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lady Olga Maitland: Very well, for a moment.

Dr. Jones: What does the hon. Lady say to the 80 per cent. of women who earn less than half the median rate paid to male workers about her Government's policies of removing the protection which was provided by wages councils, which has led to those low levels of pay being further reduced? Is she not concerned about the low levels of pay that so many women have to put up with?

Lady Olga Maitland: I am always concerned about wage levels for all people. This cant of positive discrimination totally overlooks the main issue, which is ensuring that our economy is dynamic and determined to help all women.

Mr. John Gunnell: rose—

Lady Olga Maitland: I shall not give way any more. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived, and tokenism is not acceptable today. Time is tight and precious and I want to address a very important issue which was raised by the Labour party yesterday and has been raised again today, about the lack of a national child care strategy.
If the House wants a national care strategy, it should look to the Conservative Government, because we are doing just that. They have an excellent record on child care. Does anybody give us any praise? No. Why does not the Labour party acknowledge that 90 per cent. of all three to four-year-old children are in some form of education or organised day care? Why does the Labour party not thank us for that? Why does it not accept it? It certainly takes advantage of it. Why does the Labour party not praise our Prime Minister, who has set the target that over time he will provide a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish to take it up.
Why does the Labour party not welcome the fact that in 1992 there were 133,600 places in registered day nurseries and nursery placcs—more than double the number in 1983? Why do Labour Members stay silent on that? In 1993, there were 296,000 places with registered childminders, and childminding increased by 40 per cent. between 1988 and 1991. What a fantastic track record.
We know that we have a record of helping women—a record of which we are proud. The Conservative party will carry far more credibility in the cause of women than the Labour party will.

Ms Angela Eagle: It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, especially as I was involved in Committees yesterday and could not attend yesterday's Supply day debate on women. I note that, for two years


running, we have had debates in Opposition time on the extremely important subject of the position of women in society, and what kind of progress is being made.
Today's debate has been won by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and I congratulate her on having secured it—but we still await a debate in Government time. If the Conservative party is really so interested in the progress of women and wishes to spend time demonstrating to us how central the issue is, the Government might at least condescend to give the House time to discuss it at length. I certainly hope that they will, but in 16 years of Conservative rule we have yet to see it happen.
Women constitute the majority of those in low-paid and insecure employment, and in the deregulated labour market insecurity is growing and wages have been falling, ably aided and abetted by the Government's abolition of the wages councils two years ago. As a result of that, in the affected sectors 42 per cent. of the part-time vacancies overall—and 75 per cent. in some sectors—are for jobs that still pay less than the low wage rates stipulated by the wages councils when they were abolished two years ago.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said that almost 75,000 people, most of whom are women, now earn less than £1.50 an hour. How on earth can anyone keep his or her life together, try to support someone else or have any kind of dignity in the world earning such a wage? There are 200,000 people who still earn less than £2.70 an hour. Again, most of them are women.
We must abolish such low wages in our economy. Working for such low wages does not aid dignity, and is unlikely to allow for training or to lead to career prospects. It is merely exploitation, and we should see it for what it is.
There is an interesting discussion that always takes place about the minimum wage. Of course, the minimum wage and the arguments about it are at the core of the pretty fundamental disagreements between the main political parties on such issues. We believe that a minimum wage will help to banish exploitative jobs from the economy.

Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady is right to say that that is a fundamental point, and I invite her to examine other European countries in which the minimum wage exists. For example, in Spain 35 per cent. of young people are unemployed, and in France the proportion is 25 per cent. The hon. Lady talks about exploitation, but there is nothing more cruel than the exploitation of having no hope, no job and no prospects. That is the tyranny of the minimum wage, where it exists, right across Europe.

Ms Eagle: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up different economic effects. I do not think that the existence of the minimum wage has created that high youth unemployment in other countries, or that it would create it here.
In the lower income sectors in this country wages are so low that the Government now subsidise, via top-up benefits to the tune of billions of pounds, the employers who pay those low wages. Some recent parliamentary answers have demonstrated how much taxpayers' money is paid to employers to exploit their work forces, and that is neither economically efficient nor morally acceptable. A Labour Government would certainly get rid of it.
The argument that a minimum wage would destroy jobs has been demonstrated to be false this side of the second world war. In the early 1970s, there were discussions about introducing equal pay legislation, and the Conservative party—which, by the way, opposed equal pay legislation all down the line, and also opposed the introduction of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) praised—told us all that millions of women's jobs would be destroyed and that women would be forced back into the home.
Conservatives said that the paradoxical effect of the Labour Government's pushing for equal pay legislation to improve some of the low wages, and of their trying at least to ensure equality between men and women, would be to push women back into the home. But what has happened since the legislation was put on the statute book?

Mr. Gunnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms Eagle: I shall give way in a minute, but I was going to explain what has happened since the legislation was passed.
There has been a massive increase in the number of women entering the work force. Because of the Government's economic incompetence, there has also been a massive decrease in full-time male employment, which has been partly replaced by part-time female employment. It is estimated that nine out of every 10 jobs created between now and the year 2000 will he part-time and will be taken by women. Whatever has happened as a result of equal pay legislation, it has not been the destruction of women's jobs in the economy. The opposite has happened.
I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell).

Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for not showing the discrimination against males shown by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who also spoke about equal pay. I do not think that my hon. Friend will recall the time when equal pay for teachers was won, but is she aware of the enormous opposition to that proposition by the male teachers union that was afterwards absorbed into another union? It put up a tremendous fight on the ground that equal pay would depress the wages of males because women teachers' earnings were merely a second wage.

Ms Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
Now we see the pattern repeating itself. The Labour party puts legislation on the statute book and argues for the further advance of women in our society, against discrimination where it exists and in favour of equal treatment, whereas the Conservative party spends all its time and resources opposing those moves every step of the way. Yet, when the legislation is on the statute book, Conservatives later claim that they supported it all along.

Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Eagle: I have only three minutes left, so I do not want to give way at this stage.
We must realise that there is always a fight to enable women to take their rightful place in society. Where there are areas in which women have not yet arrived, the Conservatives will always oppose any change. I read


yesterday's debate in Hansard, and there was nothing but carping about the quota system and the way in which the Labour party is seeking to integrate women into political life. Of course that is relevant to today's debate, because the more women we have here and in other decision-making areas, the more likely we are to be able to combat the low pay and discrimination that currently exist for women throughout their working lives, and even in the shape of the pensions industry.
The Labour party, by introducing the state earnings-related pensions scheme, gave women equality in pensions provision for the first time, but the Conservative Government have now made two attacks on that, which have reduced the value of SERPS to one quarter of what it would have been had it been left undisturbed.
The Conservatives destroy women's opportunities and oppose any attempt to make progress and to create equality. Because those things are so popular, they realise that they must pretend to he in favour of equality, but they do nothing about it. The first woman Prime Minister did nothing to help women make their way in society, except by the pure example she gave as the first ever woman Prime Minister. That was a powerful example, but she did nothing in legislation to help women. She showed contempt for the idea of allowing women to make progress in society.

Mr. Spring: rose—

Ms Eagle: I am sorry, but I have little time left and cannot give way.
One final thing which we must get right is affordable child care for women who wish to go to work. I am a member of the Employment Select Committee, which has been looking carefully at child care, and a report is due next week. The Committee has been overwhelmed by the sheer logic of the case to provide decent and affordable child care for women who want to go out to work. We were particularly concerned about the plight of lone parents. Fewer lone parents now work because of unacceptable benefit traps than worked 10 or 20 years ago.
The Opposition are addressing the issues of social policy seriously, and that is shown by the fact that we keep having debates in Opposition time—

Mr. David Sumberg: Endless debates.

Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman may say that the debates are endless, but, frankly, the Government provide us with no time to discuss the issues. The hon. Gentleman has just wandered in at the end of the debate, and he has not even deigned to grace us with his presence. At least the Opposition provide time in the House to discuss issues which are important to 51 per cent. of the population.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on securing the debate. We shall continue to push the issues because we know that justice must be done for women through the political process. We will fight to gain that justice, and we will not stop until we have equal opportunities and a proper place in society—whether the Conservative party likes it or not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Ms Clare Short.

Ms Clare Short: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also spoke in yesterday's debate, when Madam Speaker was in the Chair.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on introducing this debate. The issues which we are debating go to the heart of the difference in values between the Tory party and the British Labour party. We are approaching the end of a failed economic experiment known as Thatcherism. The experiment encouraged a belief that inequality is good for people and for the economy and a belief that one had to remove all protections for low-paid workers and let the market rip. Workers had to find their rate, no matter how low it might be. One had to stop taxing the wealthy, so that they could get rich and not pay taxes.
The moral contradiction at the core of the experiment is that the rich have to get richer to get more efficiency while the poor have to get poorer. Those are the core values of Thatcherism. The Opposition have always said that the Government were demonstrating a morally bankrupt set of values which was causing great pain to the British people. Galbraith said that Britain would do a service to the people of the world by testing those ideas to destruction in a fairly homogeneous and stable society. We have paid the price, and we have proved that those values are economically incompetent. Enormous damage has been done to the British economy by the present Government while they have conducted an experiment which has promoted inequality and inefficiency in the economy.
Conservative Members suggest that women Opposition Members do not realise that women's lives have improved. It is incredible to suggest to my generation that we are not aware of that. I am deeply aware that I am part of the luckiest generation ever to grow up in Britain. I thought that the generations who came after me would do even better, but that has not happened as yet, and it will not happen until we get a Labour Government.
I am a product of the post-war settlement. I am a product of that proud Labour Government who dealt with the previous terrible recession, and who brought in a comprehensive welfare state, full employment and expanding educational opportunities. I had all that. I am part of the first generation of my family to have had a university education. I have always been employed, and I have worked in a whole series of senior positions. I have always had the same pay as men, and I have always been at least equal to my male colleagues. I realise how lucky I am, and I am massively grateful for the opportunities which were given to me by that fine Labour Government.
We now have a Government who have ripped up those opportunities for current generations. I appreciate—unlike the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—that not all women in my country are as lucky as me. I see it as a part of my duty in politics to make life more just for everyone, and not just to be happy that I am okay whereas others can go and rot while working in low-paid jobs.
I am aware that there is an ever-growing number of women in Britain working in part-time and very low-paid employment. There is nothing wrong with part-time work. In the future, both men and women will work part time and will have careers in part-time work. They will


therefore be able to share the care of their children, and of their parents as they become older. We can then all be civilised, and be all the things we wish to be. We can care for our families, use our brains and abilities, operate in the economy and care for the people we love and are responsible for.

Mr. Nigel Evans: rose—

Ms Short: I am sorry, but I am very short of time. If I get on with my speech, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The model to which we should aim will he the model which the next Labour Government will seek to bring about in Britain. We will create a more just, generous and comfortable quality of life for everybody.
The present Government have failed, in that they deliberately and positively encourage low pay. They have absolutely and deliberately stripped away all the protections which exist for low-paid workers, and they have deliberately created a lower national insurance threshold to encourage the trap in which 3 million low-paid workers find themselves. Those workers are not even earning enough for their national insurance entitlements.
Secondly, the Government provide the lowest quantity of publicly funded child care of any European Union country. The consequences of that are that half the women in Britain who care for their children—that has been their traditional role—have to work part time. Their work is therefore extremely badly paid. Part-time work in Britain is so organised at the moment that it goes with poor pay, no training, no access to promotion and no pension rights, and leads to poverty in old age. Half the women in Britain are trapped in such a position.
That is not good for British men, for whom employment has dropped massively during this failed economic experiment. Some 93 per cent. of men were in employment in 1971, while just 75 per cent. of men were in employment in 1992. Men have been squeezed out of the labour market because employers are using the cheapness of women to damage women and to push men out of the labour market.

Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Short: I am sorry, but I have only three minutes left.
The Government's third failure is that their experiment leads to poor economic performance. Competition by wage-cutting leads to poor investment, poor training, a high labour turnover and, therefore, a poor performance in the British economy.
The Government's fourth failure is the massive benefit bill. There is the high cost of unemployment—by God we are paying a high cost in benefit expenditure—and also the high cost of subsidising the worst employers in the land who pay rotten wages on which people cannot live. Therefore, we have a £1 billion family credit bill, plus an additional £1 billion in housing costs. The Government's economic and labour market strategy is disastrous, and it is a part of the Government's ideological commitment to free market forces and inequality. It is damaging British women, British men and the performance of the British economy. It is a disaster.
The Labour Government will soon replace that failed economic experiment, and we will steer forward in the way which I have just described. We will produce a more comfortable society in which to live and a more efficient economy. The issue of where women sit in our society is a core issue. We must decide whether we wish to take our economy forward and modernise it to be successful, or whether we want to be held back—as the Government are doing.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Lady may be coming to the national minimum wage. I suspect that she will not give us the rate of that wage, but I would be delighted if she did so. Does the hon. Lady think that the deputy leader of the Labour party was wrong to say that any old fool knows that the national minimum wage would bring with it a "shake-out" in employment?

Ms Short: The national minimum wage, full-time rights for part-time workers, a national child care strategy—all those are part of the new economic settlement that I mentioned. One of the differences of morality, principle and economic understanding between the Opposition and the Government centres on the value of the national minimum wage. It is part of preventing employers from using women as cheap labour to push men out of the labour market, and using cheap labour instead of training and investment and thus holding back the British economy. We proudly put the national minimum wage at the centre of our economic strategy.
The Conservative party attacked us when we introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970, but Conservative Members are now boasting about how women have made some progress in their pay levels as a consequence of our Act. They said that we would put up women's wages and that women would he pushed out of the labour market and would lose jobs—that there would be massive unemployment among women. There was not, so they are wrong, as the international example and the example of our own history prove. They want to attack the minimum wage because they hate the idea that market forces will not be let rip and that lots of British workers will not he used as cheap labour by rotten employers. A Labour Government will not permit that.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Today, we witnessed the second wasted opportunity in two days. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on her choice of subject, and that is about as far as my congratulations extend. For the rest, we have seen exactly what we saw yesterday—the massed ranks of the Opposition sisterhood, with a token man from time to time. Women speakers only and tokenism personified—that is what we have witnessed in the past two days.
What do the Opposition do? Do they welcome the great improvements in the way in which women live their lives? Do they welcome the great improvements for women in the labour market and in education? No, they whinge and whine, and moan and groan. Every time that a single good fact for women is produced, they look as glum as owls. The truth is that they want bad statistics, proof of suffering and low pay so that they can say, "Look, it's all the Government's fault." They will not welcome one good fact.


I am going to give them some good facts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said, "Hear the research." I am going to let the Opposition hear the research as well. First, we will start with the good facts. Since 1979, which, in case the Opposition missed it, was the year we came to power, women's pay—hourly, weekly, full-time and part-time—has increased faster than that of men. There are 1.5 million more women at work than 10 years ago, which is a 16 per cent. increase. That is the product of a Conservative Government.
The Opposition whinge about child care, by which they mean publicly funded child care. They discount all the rest, because if one is not spending public money, one is not doing anything according to their policy. Yet the greatest increase in the work force has been among women with children under five—from 27 per cent. in 1984 to 46 per cent. in 1993. That has been done under a Conservative Government.
There has been a rise of nearly 80 per cent. in the number of self-employed women since the Conservative party came to office. Of course there has been, because we are the party of the self-employed and of the women self-employed. All that has been done under a Conservative Government.
In the decade 1984 to 1994, the proportion of women in management and professional occupations increased from 25 per cent to 30 per cent., but the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), in what was otherwise a fairly thoughtful speech, criticised the lack of women at managerial level. He picked on training and enterprise councils and said—

Mr. Chidgey: That was the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in an intervention in my speech.

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry—the Opposition picked on TECs and it was said that there were too few women on their boards. Another fact is that there are 12 women chief executives of TECs, but only four women general secretaries of trade unions.
During the 1980s, women moved into new occupations. The number of women lawyers trebled, and they now account for one third of the profession; the number of women accountants doubled, and they now make up one quarter of chartered accountants; and nearly 30 per cent. of doctors are women. Those are achievements from which our country will receive lasting benefit and of which we can be proud.
In comparison with other European countries, we have done remarkably well. The United Kingdom has the second highest female participation rate in the European Union and that has been achieved by a Conservative Government with a flexible labour market. There are more women in employment in the United Kingdom than in any other EU country, except Germany. Only the UK, among the EU countries, has a lower unemployment rate for women than for men.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I shall do exactly as the hon. Member for Ladywood did and allow the last two minutes for interventions, so that we can get some of these important facts on the record.
Those are the facts. Now for the research. According to the hon. Member for Ladywood, we do not hear about that. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development studies acknowledge that statutory minimum wages have an adverse effect on employment prospects, especially among the young and in low-productivity regions. How about the International Monetary Fund's "World Economic Report", which called on the industrial nations, especially those in Europe, to lower their minimum wages and to institute a wide range of other policies to make labour markets more flexible.
We have heard a lot about what is going on in the United States and how the minimum wage there has led to increased employment. Let us have the facts on the minimum wage in the United States—the way in which the hon. Member for Cambridge analysed the workings of the minimum wage there did not do justice to the name of Cambridge.
The federal minimum wage has fallen from more than 50 per cent. of the average wage in the late 1960s to 36 per cent. in the late 1980s. The freezing of the nominal wage in the 1980s led to a dramatic fall in its relative value, so the national minimum wage that the hon. Lady trumpets as an example is now at a 20-year low. We all know that President Clinton came into office promising that he would uprate the national minimum wage, but he found that he could not do so because, as his Labour Secretary said, of its adverse impact on jobs.
May we also have the answer that the hon. Member for Ladywood—the hon. Member for Cambridge can relax on this occasion—did not give, when we asked her about the deputy Leader of the Opposition and his clear admission that a national minimum wage would result in shake-outs? What will be shaken is people and what they will be out of is jobs. Many of them will be women. That is what the Opposition are promising women.

Dr. Lynne Jones: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in the last two minutes only.
We have heard much spurious analysis about low pay today. The low pay network's attempts to show that pay has fallen since the final abolition of the wages councils in 1993 are a complete failure and are based on flawed surveys that study unfilled job centre vacancies, not the pay that workers get. It is not surprising that unfilled vacancies offer significantly lower pay than people really earn, because the higher-paying jobs are filled more quickly and are therefore under-represented in such surveys. It would be the economics of the kindergarten not to he able to work that out.
We have also heard the usual adverse comments about part-time workers, but 87 per cent. of those who work part time do not want a full-time job. I have, of all things, the Trades Union Congress on my side—I do not usually quote the TUC, but I am delighted to have this opportunity—which has carried out a survey that says that part-timers are more than twice as happy with their jobs as full-timers. That is not very surprising, is it?
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on their pertinent interventions. I am delighted that, on the Conservative side, men took part in this debate, because women's rights, and pay and equality for women, concern all society and not just


women. That is why the restriction of speeches to women on the Opposition Benches yesterday was one of the most shameful aspects of the debate—as if only women should be concerned about that.
The Labour party boasts that it is the only party concerned to have such debates, but, since 1979, it has initiated only two debates on the subject. Labour Members should not castigate us when, at the last moment and as a token gesture, they have suddenly realised that they can do something by instituting Supply day debates on the subject. Are we to understand that, from 1979 until last year, they did not think that the subject was important because they had no Supply day debates on it?

Dr. Lynne Jones: When the Minister has a chance to look at the Hansard record of yesterday's debate, I hope that she will withdraw those remarks, because a number of men participated early in the debate. What she said was therefore completely untrue and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is now time for the next debate.

Mature A-level Students

1 pm

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to have an opportunity to raise a problem that occurs in the funding of higher education. The problem occurs with the system not of mandatory but of discretionary grants. Even with mandatory grants, which are basically those for which people apply when they want to take a degree course, everyone can think of ways in which the system could be improved. I certainly would not come here today to say that the mandatory grant system is perfect, but essentially it works. What has become increasingly obvious in recent years is that the discretionary grant system simply does not work.
For the most part, discretionary grants are given to people for further education but not necessary for a university degree. The effect is that they are given a grant under section 2 of the Education Act 1962, and it is entirely at the discretion of the local education authority whether a person is given a grant. One way or another, that system must be brought to an end.
The problem has become more obvious in recent years, because people now do more than one job in a lifetime and are encouraged to return to education and training. The difficulty is that, when they do that, they cannot demand a grant as of right but must apply for that grant, and whether they get it lies entirely at the whim of the local education authority.
Today I shall mention just two areas where that system can cause real injustice and bring about a state of affairs that nobody on either side of the House would want. Other examples exist, but I shall deal simply with the problems that affect, first, those doing A-levels and, secondly, those doing dance or speech and drama courses.
If someone takes A-levels at a time when most people do—at school—the system works, and no great problem arises. Students are at home being looked after by their parents, so their subsistence is taken care of and the school pays the fees.
The problem arises for people who do not take A-levels in that way. They may have failed them at school and then gone out to work; perhaps they did not go to a good school, or left school early with no intention of taking A-levels. Subsequently, however, a variety of people without A-levels decide, for whatever reason, that they want to go to university. At that stage, they realise that they must get some A-levels in order to do so.
I have now discovered, through numerous cases that have been drawn to my attention at my constituency surgeries, that people then follow a well-worn course of action. Such people are usually quite committed, have identified the university that they wish to attend and know which course they want to do. Having established that, they want to take their A-levels.
People with that amount of get up and go will usually have gone to a local college and satisfied themselves that it can take them on and provide the A-level courses they want. Then the problems start, because, when they apply to the local education authority, they invariably find—it happens increasingly in Devon—that they will not get the support they need.
Obviously, it would be easier to give a knee-jerk reaction and say that people should work their way through college, as that is how it used to be done. That is


easy to say, but it does not answer the case. Usually, people who do A-levels in that way do them intensively—perhaps three A-levels in one year.
The idea that one should be able to do such a concentrated course and work sufficiently to provide accommodation, food and sustenance and pay for college fees is too much to expect. There may be one or two exceptionally brave individuals out there, but I did not have to get my education in that way, and I doubt whether many other hon. Members did. I pay credit to those who can cope, but many cannot. Why should we expect more of our constituents than was demanded of us?
The problem for many people at that stage is that, although they have shown commitment by working out what they want to do, which university they wish to attend and which college can take them on, they are suddenly hard up against the problem of receiving no grant. If all else fails, they must simply drop out if they cannot raise the money for their fees or maintenance, and their hopes are blighted.
In practice, it means at the very least that people will not fulfil their potential. In reality, it means that people who could have passed A-levels and gone on to get a degree, which does not guarantee them a job but gives them a better chance of a getting a fulfilling job and contributing back into the tax system, have to drop out. Everybody then loses.
Alternatively, some people live dangerously within the "21-hour rule", as it was until recently. There is no doubt that some local DSS officials take a relatively broad and academic view of those matters, but we cannot base a further education system on local officials turning a blind eye. If a full-time A-level student maintains himself on social security benefits, ultimately he is skirting close to breaking the criminal law, and we do not want that to happen.
The third option is that potential students—in a sense, this is how i come into the debate—may take the matter to their local Member of Parliament
Over the years, I have developed a format for dealing with the problem. I have identified 10 or 12 charities that are prepared to consider a case put up by an A-level student. I provide a list of those charities and tell people, based on experience, which charities are more likely to offer a grant. It is a sticking plaster operation, and I hesitate to mention it on the Floor of the House lest I suddenly receive applications from not one constituency but 650. I am not in a position to give that list to anyone but my constituents. In any case, it is not a satisfactory way to deal with the problem.
I make no apology for dealing with the problem as a constituency Member of Parliament, but the problem goes far wider than my constituency. It is well summed up by the principal of the excellent South Devon college, Dr. Keen. I shall quote just one paragraph from his long letter, which sets out far better than I can the essence of the dilemma:
I am pleased to be able to provide some of the information which came to light in our discussion earlier today … The following information is drawn from Devon County Council's Citizens Charter indicators for 1993/94, and you will be interested to note that they issued 1,075 discretionary awards, representing 65.02 per cent. of applicants. What was not mentioned in that report is that discretionary awards were provided for subsistence only, no fees

were met. We have evidence at South Devon of over 400 adult applicants for mainstream full-time further education courses, including A-levels, where the failure on the part of the local authority to provide a discretionary award has prevented the individuals concerned from attending. As a College we have reacted to this concern by waiving 100 per cent. of the fee element of such courses for all applicants who are eligible for a discretionary award but for whom no award has been given.
Dr. Keen goes on to explain:
This contribution on our part has had adverse effects on cash flow, as we have had to survive on the units of funding derived from the Further Education Funding Council which, without a fee element, are below cost levels. Nevertheless, of 400+ applicants only 203 were able to accept under these terms. The other group (in excess of 200) had received neither discretionary award for fees or subsistence and remained unable to follow any study at the College at all.
That shows, in a crisp way, the dilemma that faces students of that sort.
I said a few moments ago that it is not only those who are studying for A-levels in their maturer years who fall into that category. What about those people who want to do speech and drama? Anyone who has any personal acquaintance of the dedication of a student who expects to be able to make a living in fields such as that will realise that they do not offer themselves lightly for such an award.
I quote from a letter that I received from the Royal Academy of Dancing, south-west region, on February 23 1995. A Miss Walker writes:
As I am sure you are aware discretionary grants for dance and drama students have been abolished by Devon County Council.
This will obviously mean that our most talented youngsters in the region will he unable to take up their places at Vocational colleges, from where many of them would go on to perform in the West End or in ballet companies world-wide. Eventually, it could lead"—
I would say, would lead—
to the smaller local dance schools in the South West closing if there is nothing for our students to work towards …
We must not let our talented dance students lose out".
Those people show a high degree of commitment and dedication even to have got themselves that far, and everything collapses when they cannot obtain funding.
What is the answer? My hon. Friend the Minister, with his usual generosity, will admit that I have not tried to take him unaware. I have pestered him with specific constituency problems during his entire time as Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education. I guarantee to continue to pester him and any successors, and I have also supplied the notes for my speech today and the material on which I draw.
I hope that my hon. Friend finds that helpful, because otherwise he will he reduced to saying, "What the hon. Gentleman says is very interesting; I shall pause and reflect on it." I hope that my hon. Friend feels that I have been extremely helpful in providing him with the information in advance, so that he can say something to us about it.
Obviously, it would not be the answer—I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister would even try to do it—to say, "The answer is that we have already done a great deal." Indeed we have. An all-time record number of people attends further education, and we can derive satisfaction from that, but it does not solve the specific problem. It is only a temporary answer to say that the social security system should be altered so that people can live on social security while undertaking education


courses. In all conscience, the social security mechanism does not exist to underpin the education system; it is there for an entirely different reason.
In no sense is the position the Government's fault, but in a sense it is the Government's problem, because ultimately only the Government can solve it. What is the answer?
I have always held the opinion, on the Back Benches and at the Dispatch Box, that it is a Back-Bencher's job to come up with problems, not solutions. It would be unfair if my hon. Friend the Minister, with his considerable expertise and the serried ranks of experts behind him, were to pick off any solution that I might offer and say, "That one will not work." The problem needs to be brought to the House, so that my hon. Friend can respond to it. Having said that, I acknowledge that old habits die hard. Perhaps I may suggest two ideas that occur to me that would solve the problem.
The first way in which the problem might be solved would be to make, in addition to a mandatory grant for a degree course, a mandatory grant for a course immediately preparatory to a degree course. That would mean that, if one took a bona fide A-level course—safeguards might be built in to ensure that it was bona fide—one could obtain a compulsory grant for so doing. That is one possibility. However, it would not encompass speech and drama students.
Therefore, a second solution might commend itself to my hon. Friend—to take away that part of the rate support grant that goes to a local education authority and give it to the Further Education Funding Council, so that the funding council can disperse it, and do so 100 per cent.
Dr. Keen draws attention to the reason why that would be a good idea. Dr. Keen sounds a caveat, and I have not been able to check that it is correct, but I guess that it is. He says:
Although I am unable to provide specific sources at the moment, I am led to believe that that element of the Rate Support Grant which should reasonably be expected to be spent on discretionary awards in Devon is in the order of £7M, and yet I am told that in the present year the actual expenditure is likely to be in the order of £3M".
It would appear, therefore, that, at the very least, the moneys that might be said to be available are not being spent 100 per cent.
It is obvious—and obvious if one considers the antics of the Devon local education authority in recent days—that decisions of that type are too crucial to be left to the whims of local education authorities. If we are to respond to changes in educational patterns and life patterns; if we are to accept and adjust to the fact that people live longer, stay younger longer, stay healthier longer and move from job to job in a way in which in our parents' and grandparents' generation would have thought impossible, we must say that the group of students that I have mentioned can no longer depend on the whims of a—perhaps even maverick—local authority.
The number of potential students affected may not be great. I do not have the resources to ascertain the number, but I do know that, even in one rural constituency, a steady trickle of people find themselves in that position. Ultimately, if I cannot help, or others cannot help, there will be blighted expectations and blighted lives.
I should like to think that my hon. Friend the Minister will at least be able to say, even if he cannot approve any solution and even if he does not know the answer off the top of his head, that nevertheless there is a problem. If we establish that, we shall be halfway to solving it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate, and for using it to bring the important issue of education for mature advanced level students to the attention of the House. He has done that clearly and eloquently.
He has, as he has said himself, done it on the back of a continuing correspondence, and having expressed concern to me repeatedly. I hope that, in turn, he will understand that I cannot give him any instant solutions today, but I have listened carefully, especially to the specific arguments that he has articulated as part of a more general picture. I shall return to those later.
I emphasise that the general system of adult student support that we have stands comparison with that in any other major comparable industrialised country. On the mandatory award side, when student loans were introduced five years ago, the total resources available to students in grants and loans were increased by 25 per cent., and they have increased each year since then, in line with forecast inflation. Those current arrangements in higher education are most generous, and, unlike the situation in many of our competitor countries, the great majority of our students pay nothing towards their fees.
I shall return to the subject of discretionary award provision later, but first I should like to say something about the increasing importance of learning throughout life, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and what the Government are doing to encourage it.
We are committed to encouraging all types of adult learning to increase participation in education by adults, and to improve levels of attainment. The evidence is that increasing numbers of people are returning to education. In the past 10 years, there has been an increase of about a quarter  further education enrolments by adults in England and Wales.
More recently, the rapid expansion of the further education sector, since its establishment in 1993, has enabled more adults to undertake the type of formal qualification-bearing courses for which the further education funding councils are now responsible. Indeed, adults now make up the majority of those in the further education sector, and we have witnessed a rapid increase in the number of mature entrants in higher education.
The national targets for education and training provide a commitment and a focus for all of us—employers, unions, educationists, trainers and Government—by highlighting what we need to do to compete with our international rivals. The targets envisage our becoming a skilled nation, and that requires raising the levels of attainment of young people and adults alike.
The lifetime learning targets set challenging goals for individuals and employers to improve skill levels to world class standards. That requires fostering a culture of lifetime learning, and that is reflected in those national


targets. We all need to work together to achieve the better educated, more highly skilled, nation that we all require in future.
The Government will continue to play their proper part, principally by funding the further education sector. The plans announced in the most recent Budget will support a 25 per cent. increase in FE student numbers in the period 1993–94 to 1996–97. A further 3 per cent. increase in student numbers is planned for 1997–98.
The increase in funding in 1995–96 will be 4 per cent, and adult students will be among those to benefit. The system that we have established, with colleges having control over their own affairs, enables colleges to respond to the needs of their own local communities in the best way possible. The funding council has assisted that process by introducing a funding system that looks at the guidance students get and the outcomes they achieve, not just at student enrolments. Colleges have the incentive to give students the qualifications that suit them best.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to the difficulties that students in Devon and in his constituency are experiencing in obtaining discretionary awards to finance their studies. As my hon. Friend is aware, discretionary awards are, by definition, an area where individual local education authorities may exercise their discretion. It is for them to decide how many awards to make, to which students and at what rates, depending on their view of local needs and priorities. Under the present arrangements, the Secretary of State has no power to intervene unless there is evidence that an authority is acting unlawfully—for example, by operating a policy of "no awards, come what may".
The evidence suggests that, overall, the number of awards made to further education students is holding up. In 1992–93—the latest year for which figures are available—there was an increase of 12 per cent. in the number of FE awards made by local authorities in England and Wales. In the same year, those authorities spent almost £170 million on such awards.
Enrolments in further education sector colleges rose by 5 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1993–94. The strategic plans of colleges indicate that the number of full-time enrolments are expected to rise by 23 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1996–97; and part-time enrolments are expected to rise by 20 per cent in that period.
I am aware, however, that there are wide differences between LEA policies and practices in this area. Where the differences reflect more than the normal variations resulting from decisions about local needs and priorities, and where they amount to some authorities effectively throwing in the towel on discretionary awards, that is of course a matter for concern, locally and nationally. I know that the local authority associations—I met them again last week—are drawing up some voluntary guidelines which should help to address the situation as to both process and substance. That is a very welcome development. The Government are also keeping the situation under review.
My hon. Friend suggested that Devon county was spending only £3 million a year on discretionary awards, against an "expected" total of £7 million. We need to be clear that Devon county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and

deciding its priorities between and within services. The council has the final say on how much it spends on education and how much is spent on other services.
The role of central Government is to set the overall framework for the funding of local authority services nationally and to determine the way in which national "standard spending" totals are distributed between local authorities through the standard spending assessment system, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar.
The 1995–96 local authority grant settlement is a tough one, but it allows LEAs in England to spend £17.204 billion on education—an increase of 1.1 per cent. over the comparable figure for 1994–95, which reflects the priority that we have given to education, among other local services, in the settlement.
Having received its individual education SSA, it is for Devon to set its own budget and to decide what to spend on particular areas of the service, including discretionary awards. The SSAs are not prescriptive, and decisions about how much to spend on education and where to spend it are matters of local discretion. The county council is responsible to its electors. It will assess its own priorities in the light of local circumstances, and take the appropriate action.
After adjustment for recoupment—which covers the net costs of 'imported' or 'exported' pupils—Devon's SSA for 1995–96 was almost £7 million greater than that for 1994–95. That represents an increase of 2.1 per cent. However, it is entirely for the authority to decide what level of budget to set, and how to spend it.
My hon. Friend also suggested a possible general solution to the problems that he identified: that discretionary award funding should be transferred to the FEFC and then passed to colleges which would make their own awards. That is an interesting suggestion, and I certainly do not wish to discourage a debate of its merits, but I should perhaps point out that it would not be as straightforward as my hon. Friend suggests.
For example, how would one deal with those colleges which are not supported by the funding council—including many of the dance and drama colleges which my hon. Friend mentioned and to which I shall return in a moment? Would it make sense for local authorities to retain responsibility for higher education but not for further education awards? On what basis would the funding council decide how to distribute the available money between colleges? Are all colleges well placed to take on the role of making grants to students, and would they wish to do so?
Of course, a transfer of funds of that sort would not of itself increase the overall amount of money available, and there would be losers as well as winners if funds were reallocated. I should also point out that primary legislation would be needed if we were not to leave local authorities with a legal obligation to consider all applications for awards, but no provision with which actually to make them.
Returning briefly to the subject of dance and drama students which my hon. Friend mentioned, I am aware that in many areas of the country that group faces particular difficulties in obtaining discretionary awards. Their courses, which are largely provided in the private sector, are relatively expensive to support and many LEAs are becoming increasingly unwilling to do that. My hon. Friend is correct to say that. I assure my hon. Friend that


the Government are concerned about the implications of that situation, both for individual students and for the future of the dance and drama industries.
My right hon. Friend had a very useful meeting with the chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain last autumn to discuss the matter. Since then, our officials have been discussing the issues with officials of the Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council. However, I make it clear that, in the current public expenditure climate, there is no prospect of any significant extension of eligibility for mandatory awards to cover students on those courses.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the so-called 21-hour rule. The Government wish to continue to encourage people of all ages to improve their qualifications for productive employment. They have given intensive consideration to how that aim may be supported in setting out the new arrangements under the job seeker's allowance. Our aim was to establish clear and objective new rules which could be easily administered and understood.
From April 1996, the new arrangements will allow people to study for up to 16 guided learning hours. They do not cut eligibility to study from 21 hours; the basis for calculation is different. The new threshold will maintain broadly the same numbers of people who are able to study at present while in receipt of benefit, and it broadly equates to part-time study under the present rules. Individuals can—and should—study privately in addition for as long as they like and still remain eligible for benefit so long as they are available for work. I think that the new arrangements will be clearer, more consistent and more certain for student applicants.
The benefit of Adjournment debates is that it enables hon. Members to offer local perspectives on issues, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing that today. There are many educational opportunities in the south Devon area. I know that many people who are involved in education and training in Devon will want to play their part in increasing participation and attainment in adult education. I am grateful for the figures that my hon. Friend supplied about the number of applicants.
There are a number of excellent colleges in south Devon, and if their growth rates are anything to go by—I know that anything up to 14 per cent. a year has been planned—they serve the local population well. I know that the achievement of one of the colleges in a nearby constituency has been recognised by the award of a charter mark. I take this opportunity to congratulate South Devon college and Dr. Keen on that award. It serves as an example of what can be, and is being, achieved.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing his concerns so eloquently. I share his hope that, in the years to come, as a result of our provisions, the educational institutions in Devon—schools, colleges and universities—will continue to go from strength to strength, and to merit many more accolades.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Safety)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The loss of a dear one in the family or a very good friend is a trauma from which people seldom recover. When that real sense of grief is overlain with deep anger at the feeling that the death may have been avoidable, the pressure is so great that it needs to be expressed, and in this case it is being expressed in the House of Commons.
In the past several years, there has been clear evidence that, because of defects in the way in which they are run, HGVs and large vehicles are increasingly contributing to terrible deaths and even worse injuries. In the frightful case at Sowerby Bridge, where six people lost their lives, not only did it take a considerable time for the case to be considered by the relevant authorities but the maximum fine for the death of six people was £5,000. The effect was to bring together a small group of relatives who have suffered that frightful trauma to alert the House of Commons to a serious and current problem.
The Government rely heavily on the fact that accident statistics are decreasing, but within those numbers it is clear that the problems involving HGVs are not only real but need to be addressed urgently. The Government have behaved with enormous and frightening complacency, despite various campaigns. I make an honourable mention of the one run by the Yorkshire Post, which highlighted some of the terrible things that have happened. The present Minister has told us that we should put pressure on the Home Office and the other agencies concerned to understand the problems.
Let us examine what the Government have done. They have announced a 20 per cent. cut across the board in the Vehicle Inspectorate. It has already been reduced by 15 per cent. since 1991. There has been pressure on the traffic police, who have responsibility for multi-agency stops and are directly responsible for many of the statistics that are of such great importance. For example, the West Mercia police gave me statistics for the total number of checks that they have carried out in a six-month period. There were 473 checks and 365 document requests, but the average mean defect rate was 91.18 per cent.
The police say, sensibly, that those statistics can vary in the type of defect that they reveal. However, vehicles that are capable of inflicting death and injury are travelling our roads. Hauliers are not just cutting costs; some are cutting corners. As one of the relatives told the Minister this week, when he was good enough to see a delegation, we should put life before livelihood.
In 1994, the Vehicle Inspectorate had 1,780 staff; by 1996 that number will be down to 1,268. The front-line enforcement staff will be reduced from 419 to 370. Therefore, we need the Government to produce a policy which is both urgent and immediate.
We must give the traffic commissioners stronger powers. They must have the right to deal with those unlicensed operators who are not part of the licensing system and who are not, therefore, subject to periodical checks. There is already a review of the traffic commissioners' work. I hope that, far from looking at a cost-cutting programme, they will be given increased powers and the ability to initiate work.


The Minister said, however, that he is satisfied that the Government do not necessarily seek undemanding roles in these matters. A recent memo to all traffic examiners highlighted the problem:
As you are aware we are falling behind on some key targets in our activity budgets at this time, with your co-operation we should be able to meet them by changing our methods … Due partly to unrealistic targets using present methods partly to unreliable weighbridges, lack of police support and road works we are well behind on both weighing and vehicle inspections … It will be helpful if … you could approach private weighbridge operators such as those at Quarries, Factories Stock Holders and Agricultural Product Stores, and ask if you may observe weighing in and out. It is realised that no prosecutions will be generated … but prevention is supposed to be better than cure.
That is absolutely right, and it is time that the Government started to put that idea into operation with some vigour and commitment.
We must have more, not fewer, roadside checks; we must ask the police not to do away with their traffic divisions, but if necessary to increase the number of those who are capable of carrying out that detailed and highly specialised work. We must not use the report of KPMG Peat Marwick, which apparently will recommend that there should not be long and costly investigations, with major tachograph inquiries, without pointing out that, as a result of some of those inquiries, the directors of two companies have been gaoled and the transport manager of a third company has been given a suspended prison sentence. Those exemplary damages are not handed out without evidence that there is a need for them.
The Government should be seeking a way of developing corporate manslaughter charges. Where there is evidence of consistent neglect or the abuse of drivers' hours, we should know that someone will be prosecuted for that irresponsibility. The Government should introduce consigner liability so that companies that use transport firms have to take responsibility for ensuring that they are employing only reputable contractors.
The fines must be increased. It is bizarre that a £5,000 fine was considered adequate for Sowerby Bridge, yet a company director who was involved in hygiene problems in the catering industry could face a larger fine. The fine for illegal operation is £450, whereas an overload could attract a fine of £750. It is worth while to some cowboys to take a risk that leads to death and injury.
We must seriously consider abandoning the deregulation of the goods vehicle licensing system. Licences are renewed at five-yearly intervals, and I do not believe that the public will continue to accept a system of renewing licences which means that, unless there is a real body of evidence, neither local authorities nor individuals have the opportunity to object to a road haulier having his licence renewed. We must do something to increase enforcement at every level.
We should stop artificial targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate and ensure there is far better training. We should certainly ensure that computer links exist between the courts and the enforcement agencies. There is no reason why those who contravene the law of the land should be able to escape. Some cases avoid proper detection for many months because the statistics have been lost between the courts and traffic enforcement agencies, even if they eventually arrive on the right desk at the right time.
Company directors who know that they are running sub-standard vehicles and pushing their drivers well beyond the hours they should work should be punished. They will not be punished adequately by the courts unless the Government make clear their anger and their commitment to changing the way in which they are operating. The Magistrates Association will respond only if it is made clear that the House of Commons does not accept what is happening.
On several occasions, the Minister has asked my little voluntary organisation—consisting only of relatives of those who have been killed or injured in accidents involving heavy goods vehicles—to put enormous pressure on the Home Office. On Monday, he said that he would act when he saw evidence of illegal operations. Let me remind the Minister that, two years ago, his own Department set up an illegal operation working party under the traffic area co-ordinating division, which recommended the introduction of power to impound vehicles. The Government should be considering that now.
I feel so indignant about the matter that I could easily speak for longer than my allotted time. We are talking about people's lives, and the destruction of families and homes. The Minister will not be able to wave that aside with bland assurances; we want him to paint a clear picture of the measures that he personally intends to introduce.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Do I understand it that those who wish to speak have the agreement of both the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the Minister?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Certainly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: r: Have they the agreement of the Minister?

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Tyler.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I did not expect to be able to speak. No doubt the Minister will be glad to learn that I shall do so very briefly.
Let me emphasise two aspects of the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). First, she expressed an all-party concern. She generously allowed me to join a deputation to the Minister earlier this week; we are grateful to him for meeting members of the campaign for safer lorries, also known by the shorter name of Brake.
Secondly, there is a feeling throughout the House that we should emphasise prevention rather than penalty. As the hon. Lady pointed out, effective penalties are an important deterrent, but prevention is more important. It is in that context that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed anxiety about the apparent reduction in the manpower strength of those who are responsible for inspecting, monitoring and policing the current regulations.


When our deputation met the Minister on Monday, he ruled out the possibility of corporate manslaughter charges. That stance has never been explained to my satisfaction—or, I believe, to the satisfaction of other hon. Members—given that it was considered appropriate to bring such a charge against the owners and operators of the Herald of Free Enterprise. The two instances are exactly comparable: both involve loss of life, disaster and damage on a very large scale, as will be clear to those who add together all the human tragedies that have occurred as a result of heavy lorry operators' going well outside the law.
I am delighted to have been able to speak, albeit briefly. I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was able to raise the issue, and I hope for a positive and forward-looking response from the Minister.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to speak briefly. Without this opportunity, my comments would have been made in an intervention—for I know that, with their usual courtesy, the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend would have given way.
Sowerby Bridge is not in my constituency, but I represented Sowerby for a long time. It is a stone's throw from my present constituency—just a step over the border. The shock generated by the tragedy to which the hon. Lady referred cannot be exaggerated; I join her in congratulating the Yorkshire Post and the local paper, the Courier, on their restrained and sensible campaign. Long-established haulage firms in my constituency, such as Joe Dean, have asked me to convey their belief that safer lorries create better rather than worse business.
The hon. Lady made her points in her own way. I have only one point to add, which was not covered adequately earlier; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will pick up further points in his reply. I believe that there should be more mobility in regard to traffic inspection points. Cowboys tend to divert their lorries from the fixed points that are often provided because they know where they are likely to be inspected, and that cannot be good. I have written in the past about this matter to the Minister, but I feel that I should mention it again.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I shall speak briefly to allow my hon. Friend the Minister to respond in detail, but I wish to highlight issues raised by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
Growing concern about lorries that do not meet the safety requirements that we rightly demand is bad news for those who operate within the law. Protection should be provided not only for lorry drivers but for the innocent travelling public who are sometimes involved in horrendous accidents. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about the accident that took place on Cromford hill in my constituency last year; another bad accident involving the mother of my constituent Mrs. Williams, also in my constituency, probably led to the formation of the Brake campaign. I pay tribute to the way in which Mrs. Williams has put so much work into bringing the issue to the fore.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us about the number of inspections that will be carried out. It is vital for the whole road haulage industry to understand that the Government are serious about enforcement. Although we must look for efficiency gains in management costs, we must not be diverted from the need to enforce the law as it stands.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I am grateful for the opportunity to assure the House that the Government remain fully committed to raising the safety standards of vehicles.
I acknowledge immediately that what the hon. Lady said is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) were able to speak; I am well aware of their interests in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley has taken a particular interest in it since the tragedy in Sowerby, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire—a former Transport Minister—has long been concerned about it.
Earlier this week, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) came to see me with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. We held a useful meeting with the organisers of the lorry safety campaign Brake. The hon. Lady chose to quote what was said then; she has her recollections of the occasion and I have mine, and no doubt any significant differences in our recollections will become clear. Suffice it to say that I believe we should spell out the measures that we ought to take, how they should be developed, what is practical and what is not, the reaction that is, no doubt, understandable on occasions but may be less practicable when implemented on the ground, and how we intend to build on our good record.
We have a good record. We are introducing measures to achieve further improvements, with the objective of making our roads safer. I pay tribute to staff at all levels in the Vehicle Inspectorate—a highly trained body of men and women who are fully committed to keeping our roads safe and working closely with the police and trading standards departments of local authorities throughout the country.
The Government certainly share the objectives of the Brake campaigners. One of those many objectives is to ensure that lorries are properly controlled and adequately maintained. Enforcement measures should be in place to ensure that, and transgressors should be suitably dealt with.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we are satisfied that an enforcement regime is in place and that it ensures that the vast majority of lorry operators are operating legally, within the requirements of the operator licensing system. That system sets very high standards: many believe that they are the highest in Europe. Despite that, we are constantly seeking improved ways of targeting enforcement against operators who run outside the system.
We must remember that operators are responsible for maintaining their vehicles in a safe and roadworthy condition. No Government can ever stand over all operators all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for


West Derbyshire was quite right to say that the majority of lorry operators try to operate legally and that they deeply resent those who do not. Enforcement is being directed effectively to ensure that transgressors are suitably dealt with.
The enforcement system underpins the individual responsibilities of vehicle operators, with three complementary forms of control. It is important that we recognise each of those components in our control system. The operator licensing system is administered by the licensing authorities. They are independent traffic commissioners, appointed by the Secretary of State and supported by the staff of the eight traffic area offices.
With very few exceptions, hauliers wishing to operate in road haulage must apply to enter the operating licensing system; entry is conditional on having adequate maintenance arrangements, not just when a licence is sought but throughout its life, to ensure that vehicles are maintained and kept mechanically sound. We have produced, in partnership with the industry trade associations, the "Guide for Maintaining Roadworthiness", which sets down the standards that operators are expected to reach in operating their vehicles. The guide has the strong support of the traffic commissioners.
An operator's performance in running his or her fleet is kept under review and can be called into question by the licensing review boards of the traffic area offices, which monitor operators' performance and bring together all the relevant data. Those licensing review boards can consider whether to recommend disciplinary action against those who fail to match the formal declaration that they made to the traffic commissioner when they applied for a licence to operate in road haulage. A computerised database has been developed to support those licensing review boards, and the number of cases considered increased from 2,175 in 1991–92 to 3,291 in 1993–94, as the system became more effective.
The Vehicle Inspectorate directly supports the operator licensing system and the traffic commissioners through its work on enforcement and in carrying out maintenance investigations and appraisals. This year, the Vehicle Inspectorate plans to carry out 15,109 in-depth investigations, which are usually directed at new operators, with around 32,000 appraisals.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was quite wrong when she asserted that, under the arrangements now in statute under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, there would be any relaxation of the supervision of operators. She is factually wrong. The reality, of course, as she would know had she listened to the debate, is that operators' licences, in every case, will be examined every five years, as now.
On deregulation related to the advertising arrangements for operators, no one has complained on any basis whatever. There are, in fact, better arrangements for representations from members of the public on operators' licences. As the hon. Lady should know, there is an advertisement that offers interested parties a narrow window during which they must post their concerns about the operator's licence. Late representations are routinely ruled out, much to the irritation of those who wish to have them taken into account. It is quite right that we should have the arrangement, which we have developed, to allow

people to make representations at any time during the five years and still have those representations taken into account.
Almost all heavy goods vehicles are subject to annual roadworthiness tests by the Vehicle Inspectorate. A certificate is issued if a vehicle is shown to meet safety and emissions standards required to pass that test. In 1993–94, the Vehicle Inspectorate carried out annual tests of about 448,000 heavy goods vehicles, of which about 127,000 had to be retested, and about 224,000 trailers, of which 43,000 had to be retested.
As well as roadworthiness tests and the operator licensing arrangements, checks are made at the roadside to ensure that UK lorries are operated safely and within the law. Checks are also made on foreign vehicles using our roads. This year, the Vehicle Inspectorate plans to carry out about 120,000 roadworthiness checks on lorries and trailers, including more than 5,000 foreign vehicles. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley that those spot checks are a powerful deterrent, as an immediate prohibition is issued for vehicles found to have significant defects, and that ban is not lifted until the inspectorate is satisfied that the defect has been remedied.
Prohibitions were issued on 16 per cent. of vehicles checked in that way in 1993–94. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there should be an clement of surprise in the way in which the checks are carried out, so that operators do not simply seek to avoid the areas where they think that the checks will take place.
In addition to roadworthiness checks on lorries, the Vehicle Inspectorate also checks that other requirements are being met, including correct documentation, overloading, drivers' hours, tachographs, vehicle lighting, tyres and placarding of hazardous loads, all of which can have a direct effect on the safe operation of lorries. The Vehicle Inspectorate aims to carry out those checks on some 306,000 lorries in 1994–95. In 1993–94, checks of that nature resulted in some 15,000 prosecutions. It is the Government's intention that lorry standards should be maintained and that enforcement should be directed against those who operate outside the law, or fail to maintain their vehicles and meet the requirements of the operator licensing system.
Much has been made—indeed, the hon. Lady referred to it—of the Department's 20 per cent. efficiency gains initiative. I want to assure the House, not for the first time, that we are quite clear that the level of enforcement by the Vehicle Inspectorate is being maintained. The efficiency gains that the Vehicle Inspectorate is achieving arise from a variety of measures, including reductions in middle management, rationalisation of the organisation, reduced accommodation costs, an increased use of information technology and improved productivity of inspectorate staff at all levels.
The Vehicle Inspectorate expects to achieve the targets set without any reduction in its effectiveness as a road safety agency or in the level of enforcement that it provides. The effectiveness of that work and the position on resources and staffing for enforcement are kept constantly under review. Each year, the Department agrees with the inspectorate a balance of enforcement work to match the enforcement requirements of the Department and the traffic commissioners.


Enforcement is directed against a broad range of requirements and the mix of enforcement activity is kept under review, and redirected where considered necessary, to address any new priorities.
For example, more enforcement effort has been directed to drivers' hours, and tachograph investigations have been carried out by a Vehicle Inspectorate task force to address the particular concerns of the traffic commissioners, because, of course, tiredness among drivers is a lethal cause of accidents. It is entirely right that, if one is looking to operate a safe regime, one should direct substantial effort at tachograph investigations. Interestingly, we carry out about twice as many such investigations as other European countries. Our record on that is second to none.
We are also looking at the problem of illegal operators. A small minority chooses to operate illegally outside the system and enforcement is being targeted against them. It is true that the scale of illegal operations is difficult to estimate, and we are currently examining how a more precise quantification of the size of the problem can be obtained.
Contrary to what the hon. Lady asserts, I have not asked Brake to produce that evidence, or in any sense challenged it or relied on it to do that. I merely suggested that, if it had any information on that score, I would be more than happy to receive it, because it is important that the organisation should not feel that it is being told that it must rely solely on the statistics gathered by the Department. When one is in the area of illegal operations, by definition one must be prepared to take a fairly wide view on where the information comes from.
We want to take action against illegal operators on two broad fronts: first, by building up information to identify who they are; and, secondly, by targeting the locations where we know they may be. We recognise our own responsibilities as a major contractor of civil engineering work in that respect. Discussions are still taking place on the detail, and I am grateful to the Federation of Civil Engineers and Contractors, which responded positively to the introduction of checks by main contractors on the licence status of vehicles delivering to and from the Department's own construction sites, for providing

facilities for checks and displaying signs warning drivers that checks will be carried out. I know that the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office have taken similar initiatives.
The objective, of course, is to prosecute the illegal operator in court, where, I hope, a suitably heavy fine will be awarded. Another objective is to persuade the illegal operator to apply for a licence and enter the licensing system. Once in the system, the performance and subsequent transgressions that result in prosecutions can be taken into account by the traffic commissioner when considering disciplinary action against a licence holder or a driver. I am satisfied that the traffic commissioners are mindful of the need to perform their statutory duties for operator and driver discipline with due regard to ensure that the procedures are properly followed and that appropriate disciplinary action is taken where justified.
Enforcement needs to be supported by data sharing. Some computer systems are already in place and others are being developed to support the enforcement and roadworthiness work of the Vehicle Inspectorate and the operator licensing function of the traffic area offices.
I want to say a few words to the hon. Member for North Cornwall about the concept of corporate manslaughter. I must make it clear to him that it is not directly my policy area in terms of constructing the criminal law. As he rightly said, I told the campaigners that there are already a whole range of remedies, including legislation on manslaughter, for such cases. I entirely take his point about the existence of the concept of corporate manslaughter and its applicability in other circumstances.
Although I do not want to rule out the prospect of other offences being created on the statute book, I reiterate that there is already a panoply of offences. From his experience, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the diffidence of the courts is often at issue. They are diffident about bringing charges in such difficult areas. I am satisfied that our effective and valuable enforcement system plays a vital part—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Time is up.

Homelessness

2 pm

Mrs. Ann Winterton: As many hon. Members are aware, the country's main national homelessness charity, Shelter, recently organised a promotional event, Shelter Week, through which it sought to boost awareness of its work and to encourage support and involvement by our constituents. I was asked to record a taped message of support for the promotional campaign and I was delighted to do what I could in a limited way to assist. As a result of that involvement, I decided to seek an opportunity to put on record a number of important points of detail and of principle in an effort to assist in moving the issue of homelessness further up the public, political and parliamentary agenda.
My starting point is simple. In a well organised and affluent society such as ours, it is a tragedy in personal, social and economic terms that homelessness continues to be a major problem. I am anxious to do all that I can to encourage the establishment of a new consensus in finding practical solutions. The more I look at the situation, the more I am convinced that real and lasting solutions will be found only when the problem is tackled by a genuine partnership between national and local government, housing associations, charities, campaigning organisations and individuals.
It is against that background that we need, first, to appreciate the sheer scale of the problem, which persists despite the commitment and determination of successive housing Ministers. In February, Shelter published a report which showed that it is helping a record number of homeless and badly housed people—it helped 64,000 households last year—through its national network of housing aid centres which are supported by central and local government grants as well as, of course, by charitable donations. The report also clearly demonstrated how crucial a decent home is to stable family life and how homelessness causes great individual misery and leads to increasing burdens on the taxpayer.
In 1993, some 139,790 households in England were accepted as homeless under the law, although many more sought assistance under the legislation and were not accepted. Although there has been a welcome decline in the number of people accepted as homeless since 1992, research by Shelter published last year showed that many authorities believe that the reduction in numbers was due to a temporary increase in the supply of housing association homes following measures in the 1992 autumn statement.
There remains considerable concern that homelessness will increase once again as the housing association development programme of homes to rent is reduced next year. The output by housing associations of new or rehabilitated homes to rent will be less than a third of what many experts agree is required. The Minister may be interested to learn that the Housing Corporation's assessment of housing needs concluded that about 100,000 low cost homes a year would be needed for the decade up to 2001. Perhaps he will take the opportunity provided by this debate to say whether he agrees with that assessment and what research his Department has carried out on the subject.
It is not just that the number of new homes coming on to the market has been reduced. The volume of new lettings of council and housing association homes has

remained relatively static and in many areas the size or type of housing most commonly available to re-let is all too rarely appropriate for those in most urgent need. The success of the right-to-buy scheme, which I whole-heartedly support, has had the practical effect of allowing 1.5 million council houses to be sold, removing them for ever from the system.
The private rented sector is often financially beyond the means of many people, especially the very young, who cannot afford the necessary deposit or rent in advance. In short, in some areas there is not enough decent housing available at affordable rents. One of the largest factors in the homelessness equation—the breakdown of traditional family life—must also be confronted.
Liberal divorce laws, the encouragement of teenage sexual activity and single parenthood, and the general undermining of the family unit—by which I mean the husband and wife and their children bound together by marriage—by taxation and other legislation, have been major contributors to changes in our country's demography. Those changes have led to less stable homes and more fragmentation. Successive Governments cannot ignore their responsibility for those social changes.
There is much evidence of disrepair in the existing housing stock. One in six homes needs urgent repairs costing more than £1,000, and they include more than 2 million owner-occupied homes. Some of those who own their homes continue to face real problems of negative equity, although, thankfully, that problem is less acute in the part of the world that I represent in Cheshire. The problem has been exacerbated by rising interest rates and the fears created by the decision of the Secretary of State for Social Security substantially to reduce income support for mortgage interest payments. That move has prompted the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association, the House-Builders Federation and the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance to warn of an increase in the number of repossessions next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is the chairman of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, told the House just a few days ago that, thus far, the house building industry is certainly not participating in the more general economic upturn that we all agree is taking place. That view will be shared by many. Unless the Treasury takes steps to encourage greater confidence in the housing market, there is every prospect that home ownership—participation in the property-owning democracy—will no longer be such a popular option as it has been in the immediate past.
One of my greatest concerns is the effect on family life, on the development of children and thus on the future of our society, of placing too many families in relatively insecure temporary accommodation. I remain concerned that too many local authorities place too many such families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at an extremely high cost to the public purse. Living in such accommodation is surely bad for the health, education and welfare of families, especially those containing young people. Shelter is to be congratulated on at least highlighting the problems and pressing instead for resources for investment in good quality housing.
A recent report by the Standing Conference on Public Health estimated that homelessness and poor housing conditions were adding a staggering £2 billion a year to health care costs. More than 50,000 families live in


temporary accommodation in which disrepair, overcrowding, shared cooking and sanitary facilities, and lack of space for children's play and study lead to higher rates of infection, depression, anxiety and behavioural problems in children, and an increased number of injuries sustained through accidents. Surely it is not, therefore, a case of being unable to afford the resources to tackle the problem; rather it is illogical and counter-productive to allow those problems to continue further.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will indicate a willingness to agree that all changes in housing policy and benefit arrangements should be assessed against the test of whether they will increase or decrease the number of families in unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation. A classic example of just what can go wrong when bringing forward changes in housing policy is revealed when we consider how the funds saved by reducing housing subsidies to housing associations and councils has been offset by more current and future spending on housing benefit as a result of higher rents. Higher rents also contribute to higher wage demands and thus fuel the inflationary spiral.
A recent survey found that 94 per cent. of the public believe that homeless people should be found homes, although that may he slightly idealistic in some ways. We need to build on that consensus to find a real, lasting and practical solution to the problem. We need an adequate supply of affordable homes for people who need them, and those in the greatest need are the homeless.
In addition, we need an owner-occupied sector which is secure and not just a route into homelessness for some people. We need a housing system that offers mobility, flexibility and real choice. Surely we, the Government, charities and individuals need to do everything that we can to extend measures which help people to keep their homes, and to ensure stability in family life, of which housing is an essential part.
I hope that, if nothing else, this short debate has provided the opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister to respond constructively to what I have said, to avoid polemics, and to rise to the challenge for the Government to redouble their efforts to tackle a problem. In a relatively wealthy, well run society such as ours, there can be little excuse for the continuation of that problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): The principal aim of the Government's housing policy is that a decent home should be within reach of every family. Relieving homelessness is an important part of our housing policy. Figures collected for my Department each quarter by local authorities show that fewer and fewer households are becoming homeless and requiring local authority help to obtain accommodation.
For the past two and a half years, there has been a reduction every quarter in the year-on-year numbers of households accepted for rehousing under homelessness legislation. The figures show that the Government have been successful in encouraging authorities to move away from using bed and breakfast hotels as temporary accommodation for homeless households. The number of homeless applicants living in bed and breakfast accommodation at the end of September 1994 was only about a third of the number three years previously.
A number of authorities use short-term leases of privately rented accommodation as a better alternative to provide good quality temporary accommodation for homeless households. To help authorities to continue to provide that accommodation, we shall shortly be laying regulations which will extend for up to a further two years the period for which such leases can be held without the cost scoring as capital expenditure.
Our policies are dealing with the needs of people sleeping rough. The Government's six-year £180 million rough sleepers initiative in central London is widely regarded as having had considerable success in reducing the number of people sleeping on the streets of the capital. A count by voluntary agencies last November found about 290 people sleeping rough in central London, a reduction on estimates of more than 1,000 before the initiative began in 1990. Independent research into the first three years of the initiative also showed that several thousand people had been helped to find accommodation through the initiative, and that many more had been prevented from becoming homeless in the first place.
Many of the people who remain on the streets of central London are the "hard core" of rough sleepers who may have slept out for a number of years. They may suffer from alcohol or drug abuse, or they may have mental health problems. The needs of those people can best be met by focused co-operation by health authorities, social services departments, housing authorities and voluntary sector agencies. We have to accept, however, that some long-term rough sleepers will be resistant to offers of accommodation and that it may take time to persuade them to come inside.
My ministerial colleagues and I have paid a number of visits to projects for single homeless people in central London, managed by excellent voluntary sector organisations such as Centrepoint, St. Mungo's, Crisis and the Salvation Army. Many of those are funded by the Department. One cannot fail to be impressed by the way in which those agencies seek to provide assistance for individuals who would otherwise sleep rough.
By March 1996, the rough sleepers initiative will have provided about 5,000 places in a range of permanent and temporary accommodation, as well as outreach and resettlement workers who contact people sleeping on the sheets and help them to start a new life away from the streets. The initiative has shown how voluntary and statutory agencies can work together towards the relief of single homelessness.
Outside central London, it is the responsibility of local authorities to consider the needs of people sleeping rough as part of their overall housing strategy. I commend to local authorities the model of co-operation between statutory and voluntary agencies developed under the rough sleepers initiative. For our part, the Government pay grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to voluntary agencies which provide direct and practical help for single homeless people. In 1994-95, £6.8 million has been made available to more than 150 projects.
As well as specific action to prevent and relieve homelessness, the Government are pursuing wider policies aimed at expanding the housing options available to everyone. Eighty per cent. of respondents to surveys said that they would prefer to own their own homes. There can no doubting our success in expanding owner-occupation. The right to buy for council tenants has brought home ownership to more than 1.6 million


families in Great Britain. We are widening the choice for tenants who want to become home owners. The local authority cash incentive schemes and the Housing Corporation's incentive schemes for tenants have helped a further 21,000 people to buy homes. Those schemes have the additional benefit of freeing council or housing association dwellings to house more families in greatest need.
We shall continue to give high priority to bringing the option of owner-occupation within the reach of more people. Since house prices and interest rates are both low, home ownership is more affordable than it has been for years, so now is a good time for people to think about buying.
We recognise, of course, that not everyone will be able to afford to buy a home outright, particularly young people, so our policies also deal with the demand for rented accommodation. In particular, we are keen to expand the role played by the private rented sector in offering accommodation to people in housing need. It is a mistake to assume that private rented accommodation will, by definition, he inadequate. For many families, it is the right and most flexible answer. With several hundred thousand vacant private sector homes in England, scope exists for bringing more homes into private renting to help meet housing demand.
We have introduced a number of initiatives to achieve that. For example, housing associations have become involved in the management of private rented stock. Acting as managing agents, they have brought benefits to tenants, through the provision of a high level of service and security, and to landlords by providing a high quality, hassle-free intermediary. To build on this initiative, a new scheme—HAMA Plus—has been introduced. It will provide an additional £5 million in 1994-95 to housing associations providing management services to bring empty properties back into shape and back into use. Housing associations have also been central to the flats-over-shops initiative, which not only brings unused space back into use but brings new life to abandoned areas of our high streets.
Local authorities themselves have also done a great deal. A number have introduced imaginative schemes to encourage local landlords to co-operate with them in housing families and others in need. One approach that is achieving impressive results is the introduction of rent and deposit guarantee schemes. They give landlords the reassurances that they may require to house low-income tenants and can dramatically increase the chances of such households gaining access to rented accommodation.
There is now some evidence of an increase in private lettings. The number has grown from just over 1.6 million in 1988 to just under 2 million at the end of 1993. It is important that we continue to reinforce that trend in recognition of the vital role that a healthy private sector can play in meeting housing need. But the social rented

sector also has, and will continue to have, a role to play in providing long-term, settled housing for families who need help.
It is difficult to estimate the need for social housing at national level because it depends on how need is defined and short-term fluctuations in factors affecting access to owner-occupation, such as house prices and interest rates. However, many publicly quoted estimates of 100,000 homes a year seem to us to be overstated.
We are investing significant sums of money in social housing. Public resources to housing associations—the main providers of new low-cost housing for rent and for sale—are more than £1.5 billion this year, enabling some 60,000 new lettings to be provided. That will bring the total over the three years to 31 March 1995 to more than 180,000, an all-time high level of housing association provision and about 27,000 more homes than we promised in the 1992 Conservative manifesto. Over the next three years—1995–96 to 1997–98—we expect Housing Corporation and local authority expenditure together, and the private finance that they will attract, to produce a further 180,000 new lettings.
If local authorities are to make the best use of those new lettings and the existing stock, they need fair and rational systems for allocating their housing and their nominations for housing association tenancies. The courts' interpretation of the current homelessness legislation has made that impossible in some areas. At present, households who happen to apply for assistance under the homelessness legislation are automatically placed on a fast track for housing allocations, irrespective of whether they have the greatest need for long-term social housing. Meanwhile, families in need on the housing waiting list are left standing. For that reason, we are committed to reform.
Our proposals would separate the allocation of long-term tenancies from the provision of immediate assistance to the homeless. Quite simply, those who have the greatest need for long-term social housing should get the highest priority, whether or not they have been accepted as homeless by the local authority. At the same time, we are committed to retaining an effective safety net for homeless families and vulnerable people to ensure that those groups have access to suitable accommodation.
The relentless growth in the number of households in this country has presented a formidable challenge for our policies on housing throughout the Government's period in office. I am pleased to say that those policies have withstood the test and are succeeding in dealing with homelessness and increasing the supply of dwellings. We have also expanded the housing options available, so that more people than ever before have the opportunity to own their own homes.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming:—

It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1993–94

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return of the Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1993–94, showing:—

(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1994.

The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Burns.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Post Office

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to assess the opinion of the public on the future of the Post Office.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government issued a Green Paper on the future of postal services in June last year.

Mr. Raynsford: As the President of the Board of Trade appears a little coy on this issue, may I remind him of the implacable opposition of the British people to the privatisation of postal services? May I also remind him that the people of Greenwich are equally opposed to the back-door privatisation of their post office by Post Office Counters, which is trying to close the Crown post office and to hand it to a franchisee, probably operating from the back of a supermarket?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the unions tried to organise a strike on the issue on Monday. I am pleased to tell the House that that strike was even more of a failure than the one a few weeks ago.

Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main difficulty is that the public still believe that he has it in mind to privatise Post Office Counters, whereas our only proposal is to privatise Royal Mail?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. More than 19,000 post offices are in the private sector and only a relatively small number—a few hundred—are Crown post offices. The proposals that the Government considered were related to the privatisation of Royal Mail.

Regional Electricity Companies

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Director General of Electricity Supply about the pay and perks of directors and executives of the South Wales, Northern and Eastern regional electricity companies.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. The regulator has no responsibility for these matters.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that the chairman of the South Wales electricity company has received a 68 per cent. rise in pay, that the chairman of Northern Electric has received a 46 per cent. rise and that the chairman of Eastern Electricity has received a 110 per cent. rise? When will it dawn on Ministers that the British public are scandalised by the way in which the bosses of privatised monopolies are making vast sums, beyond the dreams of avarice, out of consumers? The bosses are up to their ankles in the trough and they went in head first. When will Ministers realise that this scandal must be dealt with, that the responsibility is theirs and that they must take action?

Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we are awaiting the


consideration of the Greenbury committee. The committee will consider these issues, among others. The Government have made it clear that if, after receipt of the recommendations, it is felt appropriate to legislate, we shall certainly consider doing so.

Mr. Batiste: Is not the real point that, as Professor Littlechild demonstrated so clearly this week, the regulator has all the powers necessary to look after the interests of the British consumer? His new intervention is good news for the British consumer, who will get even lower electricity prices as a consequence of the privatisation programme.

Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in the debate only 10 days ago criticised the regulator because, allegedly, he was not taking enough account of the interests of consumers. Following the regulator's announcement yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman attacked him for not taking account of the interests of the shareholders.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not strange that, after the extraordinary events of the past 48 hours, the President of the Board of Trade is not making a statement about them and about the consequences of the regulator's announcement? Far from attacking Professor Littlechild, as the Minister wrongly claimed, I welcomed his belated action yesterday. Is it not clear from his announcement that electricity consumers have been massively overcharged and fleeced of perhaps billions of pounds over the past four or five years? What action do Ministers intend to take to ensure that the regulator acts now to reduce electricity prices further? Is it not clear that electricity shares are overpriced exactly because consumers have been overcharged?
As officials and Ministers in the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry knew of Professor Littlechild's intention to consider a price review before the sale of PowerGen and National Power shares, is not that inside information, as defined in part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993? As we saw yesterday, beyond question the matter was price-sensitive. In withholding that information, are not Ministers and officials guilty of either absolute negligence or complete dishonesty in their handling of this affair?

Mr. Eggar: What is absolutely clear is that the Labour party opposed privatisation, and therefore opposed the benefits to consumers which have already flowed from privatisation, including a reduction in real terms in electricity prices of 9 per cent. over the past two years. The right hon. Gentleman says that the consumers have been ripped off. He seems to have forgotten the record of the previous Labour Government, when real electricity prices rose by 22 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's outrageous allegation towards the end of his long question, may I refer him to the article in The Guardian on Saturday, which made it very clear that he had written to the regulator asking for a reduction in prices ahead of 1 April? Did he say to the stock exchange—[Interruption.] This is very relevant. The right hon. Gentleman has accused my right hon. Friends and me of misleading the public who have bought Generating Company shares. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer the letter that he wrote to the regulator to the stock exchange, nor did he give any

indication in that letter, as I understand it, that there was any expectation that the political pressure that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to bring to bear on the regulator would have any impact on the Genco sales.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: When considering the pay of directors of regional electricity companies and, indeed, companies as a whole, does my hon. Friend agree that those matters are not for the Government but for the shareholders who own the companies? To make that system effective, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of shareholders having, by law, to vote every year on the pay and perks of their directors, just as they presently have to vote for the reappointment of auditors?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion, and it may be one of the things that the Greenbury committee will consider.

Post Office

Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices now have agency status.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): A total of 18,960.

Mrs. Roche: Given that more than 1,300 people in my constituency have signed a petition opposing the change to agency status at Muswell Hill post office and that the senior area manager in charge of that post office has told me that he does not know of one person who supports the change, why are the Government foisting that change on my constituents and on people up and down the country?

Mr. Page: Any proposal to change from Crown to agency status is the decision of Post Office Counters. May I give the hon. Lady a little hope for the future? When such a conversion takes place, an independent survey is made immediately and in 99 per cent. of cases the public have deemed themselves generally satisfied with the move.

Mr. McLoughlin: May I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post? He is absolutely right to say that conversions of Crown post offices have been generally accepted. Will he confirm that one of the usual benefits of the conversion policy is that post offices under agency status open longer and give a far better service to the public? Will he not be distracted by the synthetic strike action which failed miserably this week?

Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words. He is right; Monday's strike was a miserable flop. Only 75 Crown post offices shut, while 740 stayed open—and of course, the 18,960 agency post offices were still there to provide service to the customer. Moreover, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: when conversions take place, we find that the level of trade increases.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of gross domestic product was invested in manufacturing industry in 1993.

Mr. Heseltine: Manufacturing investment was 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product in 1993 and 10.2 per cent. of manufacturing output, when measured at constant prices.

Mr. Campbell: But is it not true that, in the past 15 years, 40 per cent. of jobs in manufacturing industry have been lost? There was the loss of the pits, the loss of the shipyards and the loss of the steelworks—and the Government do not even know that they have done it.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that the overmanning that had done so much to hurt British industry could somehow be sustained. He should allow us enormous credit for the fact that Britain is now manufacturing at far higher productivity rates and is therefore far more competitive than it was. Investment forecasts for manufacturing industry next year are seen to be rising significantly.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the factors that influence investment in manufacturing industry are the levels of manufacturing output and of interest rates? As manufacturing output fell significantly in January, the most recent month for which figures have been recorded, is it not a great relief to my right hon. Friend that we are no longer in the exchange rate mechanism, and are not being forced to raise our interest rates today, along with the countries that had the misfortune to remain in the ERM, which will crucify their domestic economies because of their loyalty to the European dream?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has very strong views on that subject, and I admire his ingenuity in trying to exploit them in the context of the question. But that is not relevant to our position today, because the outlook for British manufacturing investment for next year is extremely encouraging.

Mr. Wilson: Do not the appalling figures for manufacturing output released this morning give the lie to the over-inflated hype that we hear from the Government about the success of manufacturing and about the recovery? Is it not extraordinary that, when exports are doing relatively well, factory output is falling? What does that tell us about domestic demand? Is it not true that all the claims about economic recovery are fragile and that the real economy, as represented by this morning's figures, has little to do with the world of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Governor of the Bank of England?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman does not live in the real world. The figures announced today show that output in January was 4.3 per cent. higher than output a year ago, and that productivity in the fourth quarter of last year was 5.9 per cent. higher than that of a year ago. The latest CBI forecasts show an 8.4 per cent. growth in manufacturing investment this year, and those by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research show an increase of 9.3 per cent. When will Opposition Members recognise success when they see it?

Sir Donald Thompson: Is it not obvious to my right hon. Friend and to the rest of the House that, as unemployment is falling, manufacturing industry and other industries are improving?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. Employment is increasing both in manufacturing industry and in the

service industries, and one of the most exciting things that is happening is that British manufacturing exports are rising significantly throughout the world. All the forecasts suggest a better year this year, and an even better one next year.

Post Office

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Post Office concerning proposals to employ additional part-time staff to replace full-time staff.

Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. Staffing levels and working patterns within the Post Office are a matter for Post Office management, not the Government. I understand that the Royal Mail wholly refutes the allegations of target cuts in full-time postal jobs made in recent press reports.

Mr. Prentice: Is not the accelerating casualisation of the work force of the Post Office directly attributable to the uncertainty about the future of the organisation and to the Government's unwillingness to make plain what they intend to do about the Post Office in the future? Should not the Government give the Post Office commercial freedom to expand its business and to create new full-time jobs instead of allowing it to twist in the wind with no clear idea of where its future lies?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman appears to be totally unaware that the Post Office employs 115,000 full-time staff, that it is committed to improving the standards of services delivered both to households and to businesses, and that it has a fine record which is second to none in the world.

Sir Peter Emery: In considering staff matters, will my hon. Friend look at the problems of staffing in contracted-out post offices in relation to motor vehicle licences? However much we may welcome the new sub-postmasters, something is very wrong when many of them cannot issue vehicle licences. A constituent of mine had to motor 60 miles to get a licence, and that is nonsense.

Mr. Eggar: I shall look into my hon. Friend's specific concern. As a matter of general policy, we are encouraging Post Office Counters and sub-post offices in particular to expand their business opportunities and to improve the width and breadth of the services which they can offer to constituents.

Mr. Hain: The Minister must know that the switch from full-time to part-time staff has come about because of the cost-cutting that has been forced on the Post Office as a result of the Government's dithering over its future and their failure to give the Post Office commercial freedom. Will he come clean on the fact that one of the results of that will be a decline in the number of second deliveries? There has been a contraction in second deliveries, but, as more part-timers are employed by the Post Office, the Government's long-term objectives of getting a once-over-the-ground service and sacrificing second deliveries will be the result.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware that the reason why fewer letters are delivered on the second delivery is that the Royal Mail has so improved


its service that the vast majority of letters are delivered on the first delivery. If there are no letters left, it is hardly surprising if few are delivered.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Dykes.

Mr. Dykes: May I thank my hon. Friend—

Madam Speaker: Order. I was calling the hon. Gentleman to ask Question 6.

Machine Tool Exports

Mr. Dykes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the development of United Kingdom machine tool exports in recent months.

Mr. Eggar: I am not sure whether to apologise to my hon. Friend or not.
The Department takes a continual interest in the export performance of industry. Export sales of machine tools at current prices in the fourth quarter of 1994 were almost double the level achieved in the same period in 1993. In the first three quarters of 1994, the machine tool industry ran an estimated balance of payments surplus of £40 million.

Mr. Dykes: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I shall try to ask a question about the Post Office on another occasion.
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that, after years of battering and decline, the machine tool industry has now significantly turned the corner and is producing much improved figures? Would he say that that was due to the recent devaluation of the pound or to reinvestment?

Mr. Eggar: It is due to the first-class commitment by management in the machine tool industry towards identifying significant new export opportunities and to a considerable commitment by the work force to additional training. The industry has a record of which Members on both sides of the House should be proud.

Mr. Barry Jones: On the vital subject of manufacturing, can the Minister tell us why the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed that Consett steel works was producing steel?

Mr. Eggar: The Chancellor is extremely proud of the fine record of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. He is also extremely proud of the record of inward investment in the north-east of England. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my right hon. and learned Friend is proud of the introduction of Nissan, Samsung and many other allied companies.

Telecommunications

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the relative costs of telecommunications services in the member states of the European Union.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Studies for my Department and by other bodies show that United Kingdom telecommunications costs are among the lowest in Europe. The UK is pressing for rapid liberalisation of European telecommunications to bring down costs throughout the Union and to stimulate multi-media communications.

Mrs. Knight: As low telecommunications costs are an essential element in ensuring that business is competitive, when does my hon. Friend expect liberalisation to take place throughout the European Union and does he expect that British Telecom will benefit from that?

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to confirm that the Telecoms Council last November set a date of 1 January 1998 for complete liberalisation of voice telephony and infrastructure, and Commissioner Bangemann has confirmed that that is the date by which liberalisation must have taken place, not the date from which it should commence. That is tremendously good news for European industry, but it is especially good news for industry in this country competing in the newly liberalised markets, given the experience of competitive telecommunications and falling costs that we have had for many years.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that one of the important considerations affecting costs in the sector is the extent to which fibre-optic linking will be made available, not only in the industrial cities and conurbations, but throughout all areas in these islands? Will he give an assurance that, in developing policy, he will bear that in mind and ensure terms and conditions of agreement with contracting companies which place an obligation on providing services to rural as well as to industrial areas?

Mr. Taylor: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that access to the super-highway covers the whole country and not just parts of it. We are considering licensing those parts of the country that are not yet covered by the cable industry, but the most interesting way to take that service to the really rural areas is probably through alternative technologies, such as use of the radio spectrum. I am studying the outlying parts of Wales with the Secretary of State for Wales to find out how quickly we can produce proposals on the use of the radio spectrum to bring together the rural communities.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that he deserves considerable congratulation, as the breakthrough in telecommunications will be of great benefit to the British telecommunications industry, as he rightly said, and to consumers throughout the European Union? Will he be emboldened by that success to press forward, together with his colleagues, to ensure that we extend the single market to energy and the airline industry, and go for complete airline deregulation in very short order as well?

Mr. Taylor: It is always good to have the support of my hon. Friends in this matter. I also had the support of the other Ministers at the G7 conference the weekend before last when it was made clear in the conclusions that British policies had set the agenda. There is no doubt that within the European Union we should extend the benefits of the competitive market to energy and the airline industry. That will require us to stiffen the resolve of the European Commission and to ensure that, once member states agree regulations, the European Court of Justice has adequate powers to take action if countries do not obey the rules to which their political leaders have agreed.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does not the Minister realise that many domestic households in this country have fewer phones than households in our competitor countries because of the very high connection charges, which are


higher in Britain than in Sweden, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, the United States, France, Germany and Canada?

Mr. Taylor: The point about telephones is that the overall costs in this country are among the lowest in the European Union. They are slightly above those in Sweden, which has also liberalised. The key condition for telecommunications is liberalisation and Opposition Members should remember that, given the amount of opposition with which they met our telecommunications policies over the years. We have a proud record in telecommunications and it has given us, through the alternative infrastructure of the cable industry, access to even cheaper connection and standing charges, as will have been seen from the policy announced by Nynex Communications only last week, when it cut the cost of telephony by 25 per cent.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the transformation of a sleepy British Telecommunications and a nationalized Cable and Wireless—as it was—into world-class companies that are winning orders and being very successful throughout the world is a huge tribute to the success of the privatisation programme and the fact that they are able to compete and win business in Europe? We must continue pressing to open the market, so that those very successful and now private companies can win more and more orders.

Mr. Taylor: Britain now has 150 public telephone operator licensees, having started with just one in the early 1980s. BT has therefore had to face competition in the domestic market and, increasingly, in the local loop from the cable industry. It is therefore a more successful company. Whenever I go to other countries and talk to their telecommunication industry leaders and Ministers, they want BT to join partnerships with them. I am delighted at the success of both BT and Cable and Wireless in helping British exports and making use of their new-found competitive instincts.

Chemical Industry

Mr. Watson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to increase the participation of women in the chemical industry.

Mr. Page: The continuing competitiveness of the chemical industry depends on it attracting and retaining high-quality employees, both male and female. My Department is in regular contact with the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Chemical Industries Association and the Office of Science and Technology's development unit for women, in order to promote the role of women within the chemical industry.

Mr. Watson: The Minister's response betrays the fact that he is totally unaware of figures provided by the Chemical Industries Association, which show that, of some 280,000 workers within the industry, only a third are women. Is he further aware that a working party established by member companies of the CIA and trade unions in the industry have unearthed considerable evidence of job segregation, which prevents women from reaching many of the more influential and better-paid jobs in the industry? On International Women's Day, how does

he intend to stop that waste of talent and ensure that women's skills are utilised fully throughout the chemical industry?

Mr. Page: I accept that the industry starts from a low base, but I do not accept the doom and gloom scenario that the hon. Gentleman advances. For example, the Chemical Industries Association has produced an equal opportunities self-assessment pack, which enables chemical companies to implement equal opportunities. In 1992–93, 36 per cent. of first degree graduates in chemistry were female. That is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that I am the son of a lady research chemist, and that the lady whom my mother once succeeded in a job as a research chemist in the 1950s, our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, has made the most significant contribution to Britain and the world of any research chemist ever?

Mr. Page: I had often wondered what made my hon. Friend so special, and now I know.
News in that direction is encouraging. The proportion of women studying chemical engineering is rising: in 1988, the figure was some 17 per cent. and in 1993 it had risen to 22 per cent. Again, figures are going in the right direction.

Departmental Offices

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to offer flexitime and parental leave in offices run by his Department.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Flexible working hours arrangements already operate extensively throughout the DTI and its agencies. All such arrangements are set up locally.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that the development of the executive agencies is putting the availability of flexitime and parental leave at risk? Given that both flexitime and parental leave are important to encourage, maintain and help women back to work, will he outline to the House his proposals to ensure that both parental leave and flexitime are safeguarded within those agencies?

Mr. Taylor: Given that the DTI is setting the lead with its "Investors in People" programme, which will make extremely good commitments to all DTI employees, I have no doubt that the various agencies will make their own local arrangements. Throughout the civil service, flexitime is increasing because that is what employees want. We are also safeguarding parental leave. If the hon. Gentleman has a constituency example that is causing him concern, I hope that he will write to me. Overall, we find that the reactions of staff to how they are treated within the agencies and the DTI are encouraging.

Mr. Harry Greenway: What measures is my hon. Friend's Department taking to encourage and allow people to work at home, as part of the flexi-arrangements that he has described?

Mr. Taylor: One specific way is that, as we roll out new technology, and as Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, I am encouraging tele-working. There is no doubt that the ability to access from home the


same computers, and in the same real time, as those used in the office, will be an interesting way of proceeding to avoid people having to commute every day simply to gain access to office information and material and to make a contribution.

Solent Routes

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will be conducting the inquiry into the Solent routes following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report; and when he expects to make an announcement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): The Director General of Fair Trading will review the cross-Solent ferry services market this year, as announced in 1992 on publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. I understand that the director general is to seek the opinions of interested parties shortly and will announce his findings in due course.

Mr. Field: Following the escape from Parkhurst prison, my hon. Friend and the nation now appreciate just how difficult it is to leave the Isle of Wight. Although the majority of my constituents appreciate the tremendous improvement that has taken place in the quality of service on the cross-Solent ferry routes, nevertheless anxieties remain about the high prices.
I should like my hon. Friend to be able to reassure me that the next, and second, inquiry will consider costs carefully, especially as the first inquiry concluded that the ferry routes to the Isle of Wight are the most expensive in the whole of the world, yet reached no conclusion.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has always given special attention to that issue, and I recognise that. He must be aware that the MMC's report concluded three years ago that, although there was a monopoly position on the Isle of Wight in favour of Wightlink, it did not operate against the public interest in terms of profits or fares, and that that restricts the power of the President of the Board of Trade to take remedial action. We do not have legal power to act unless there is an adverse finding by the MMC.
In that context, the then Secretary of State announced that the position continued to require monitoring, and for that reason the position would be reviewed three years later. That review is to take place, and I am sure that the opinions outlined yet again by my hon. Friend will be expressed to the director general.

Investment

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to help ensure that profit-making British companies invest in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heseltine: The Government have pursued, and will continue to pursue, the policies that have turned the United Kingdom into an attractive place for investment, whether by British or overseas companies. Since 1979, the volume of investment in plant and machinery has increased by more than a half, and total business

investment by more than a third. The United Kingdom is second only to the United States in attracting overseas investment.

Mr. Hughes: Does the President recognise the tendency of British companies, after they have made profits as a result of the efforts of their work force, to invest those profits abroad? Will he also recognise that it follows that Britain now has a record of investment that is about the lowest in the industrialised world? Bearing in mind the persisting high level of unemployment, what will the Government do about that position?

Mr. Heseltine: The first thing that I would advise the hon. Gentleman to do is return to his constituency and explain that unemployment has decreased by 430 in the past 12 months. Then perhaps he will move on to Electrotech Ltd., which has announced the creation of another 200 new jobs in the next three years. After that, he can go to British Steel at Llanwern, which has announced the creation of 150 jobs. After that—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members cannot take that, because things are going too well for them. After that, the hon. Gentleman can go on to Castle Leisure in his constituency, which has announced the creation of 80 new jobs. By the time that he has finished that journey, there will probably be some more good news.

Sir Cranley Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest possible deterrent to profitable investment anywhere in the United Kingdom would be the imposition of the provisions of the social chapter?

Mr. Heseltine: I am in absolute agreement with my right hon. Friend that, if the Labour party ever had the chance to introduce the social chapter, that would be the biggest single accelerator of unemployment that one could impose on our manufacturing base.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the President of the Board of Trade recall that, when ICI was under threat from Lord Hanson, the whole House held that company's commitment to investment in high regard? On 24 February, Bryan Bullock, the ICI power services manager, said:
The UK's largest industrial consumers for whom electricity is a feedstock cannot wait indefinitely for competition to emerge and will emigrate overseas".
Does the President agree with that statement? How long must we wait for Littlechild to change his mind about that issue? Is the President prepared to intervene to defend the major energy consumers in the UK and to give them the fair crack of the whip internationally that they have not had previously because of the regulator's indifference to their concerns?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we recently changed the law to provide companies such as ICI with the opportunity to generate their own on-site electricity. I believe that ICI has already taken advantage of that new flexibility.
This is a question about Britain's interests in investment and in our major companies. ICI, whose officer the hon. Gentleman has quoted, is one of Britain's jewels in the crown. It invests across the world, earns profits across the world and carries the flag of British industry into every corner of the world economy.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that he continues to encourage the


highly successful British pharmaceutical industry, to ensure that it remains firmly anchored in this country as one of the jewels in the crown to which he referred?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise that we give every encouragement to the pharmaceutical industry, which is one of Britain's leading industries. There is massive investment in that industry, and we are pioneering new drugs which are extremely important for our future.

Share Options

Mr. Clapham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to introduce to regulate the issue of share options.

Mr. Evans: Share options and other aspects of directors' pay are under consideration by the Greenbury committee. I have no plans to introduce any measures in advance of that committee's findings.

Mr. Clapham: I am rather surprised at the Minister's answer, particularly in view of the public concern, of which he must be aware, and in the light of the Prime Minister's acceptance of Labour's position that something must be done about boardroom excesses. The Minister must also be aware that it was revealed recently that 77 directors of the private electricity companies had awarded themselves £72 million in share options. In the light of that, does he agree that it is in the public interest for the Government to regulate to control boardroom excesses?

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that the Government are prepared to give legislative backing to any proposals from the Greenbury committee which require such back-up. We are prepared to examine that issue.
However, the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that share options as a whole should be opposed. We believe that well-devised share option schemes help to motivate key staff and to reward high performance. I welcome proposals from institutional investors to ensure that share options are linked to realistic measures of management performance. The hon. Gentleman should also know that listed companies are required to give the stock exchange full details of their share option schemes.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than having share options, it would be much more motivating, stimulating and sensible if executive bonuses were linked to movements of the FT Index, so that executives shared the losses as well as the profits, as do shareholders? Is that not precisely what British Gas is proposing?

Mr. Evans: The Government primarily take the view that companies should decide the pay levels of their staff. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Greenbury committee has said that it is drawing up a code of conduct on that subject. I know that the committee is prepared to examine a wide variety of possible forthcoming proposals.

Dr. John Cunningham: The abuse of share options is widespread among privatised monopoly utilities such as gas, water and electricity. The Government have a Bill about the gas industry before the House, but why does it contain no proposals to end those abuses in the interest of the consumer? Would it not he better for the President of the Board of Trade, instead of pouring out his energy

wastefully in the bluff and bluster that we have just heard, to expend it more efficiently in taking the action which people the length and breadth of the country want to end the abuses? The opportunity exists now. Why do not the Government take it, or is it once again the Prime Minister expressing distaste for something but doing nothing about it?

Mr. Evans: Many in the House will find it strange and inconsistent on the part of the Opposition that, although they attack the whole concept of the share options, they tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill, the effect of which would have been to grant unlimited tax relief to company directors on fees paid for tax advice on the best time to exercise share options—a proposal that "Accountancy Age" said had tax planners in Britain licking their lips with anticipation.

Inward Investment

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps his Department is taking to encourage inward investment into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heseltine: A number of steps have been taken recently to strengthen the United Kingdom's inward investment promotion. These include the appointment of a new chief executive and moves to set up a computerised database to improve the presentation of all relevant information to prospective investors. Currently, proposals for upgrading the United Kingdom overseas marketing efforts and an "aftercare" programme for existing investors are being developed.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that 40 per cent. of Japanese inward investment into Europe and 43 per cent. of American investment into Europe comes into Britain? Does he agree that that is because Britain has more to offer than any other European country?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we can add to the figures she gave the results now coming from Korea and Taiwan and the flow of companies coming here from Europe itself. It may interest the House, as this is such an important part of the reconstruction and rebirth of our manufacturing base, if I say that, in 1993-94, the Invest in Britain Bureau recorded 428 inward investment decisions, creating or safeguarding 99,000 jobs. If one takes the figures from 1979-80 to 1993-94, the IBB recorded more than 4,000 projects with more than 600,000 associated jobs.

Mr. Beggs: Can the President of the Board of Trade assure the House that Northern Ireland gets equal promotion with other regions of the United Kingdom when inward investment is being attracted, or is it left to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ministers, the Industrial Development Board or perhaps the present Minister for Trade, who did an excellent job when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. Heseltine: The Invest in Britain Bureau is responsible for the United Kingdom, but in respect of the actual availability of cash to help the stimulation of


inward investment, the hon. Gentleman will be as aware as the rest of the House that Northern Ireland receives more than its proportionate share.

Mr. Bell: The President of the Board of Trade did not mention the fact that most of the multinationals that have come to our country have created works councils under the social protocol. We now have more multinationals with works councils than any other European country. I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade, who, when he visited Samsung, recognised the work of Hartlepool council and Stockton council in getting Samsung to our area and the significant effort made by the work force, but can he not tell us now that he has made better arrangements with the Treasury for more regional assisted schemes? Will there be better infrastructure, and how will we meet the competition from Europe to get more regional development flowing our way?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard what I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs said. Britain is getting far in excess of any proportional share of inward investment flowing into the European Union. It is coming here because overseas investors see Britain as one of the most competitive places in Europe in which to invest. One of the reasons for that is that we do not have the social chapter which the Opposition would impose.

Dr. Twinn: In continuing his successful campaign to bring inward investment into Britain, will my right hon. Friend highlight the excellent location to be found in north London, Edmonton and Enfield, which is made even more excellent by the good help in the real terms of economic assistance given by him and by his Government?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall do my best to help my hon. Friend. He will know that he is not alone in making such suggestions.

Mr. Bayley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department is doing currently to encourage inward investment in York.

Mr. Eggar: The Invest in Britain Bureau is providing £1.27 million in grant in the current year for the Yorkshire and Humberside development agency for the encouragement of inward investment in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside—which, of course, includes York. It is important that local authorities such as York work in close partnership with the YHDA.

Mr. Bayley: Is the Minister aware that the Swiss-based multi-national company ABB Rail Vehicles Ltd. is one of the companies that have invested heavily in the British economy during the last few years? It has invested £50 million in the York carriage works. That investment, however, is likely to be written off by the company because of the Government's failure to ensure continuity in orders for new trains for British Rail.
What kind of advertisement for inward investment in the United Kingdom is provided when changes in Government policy mean that investors lose their money? What do the Government intend to do to ensure that

British Rail places an order for trains to keep the York works open, and to maintain a viable rolling stock manufacturing industry in our country?

Mr. Eggar: I suppose that it would have been too much to expect the hon. Gentleman to draw attention to the successes of investment in the York area—for example, the decision by Samsung Heavy Industries to invest in manufacturing industries at Flaxby. It is the first time that a Korean company has done so.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned ABB. British Rail has invested heavily: some £4 billion has been invested in rolling stock since 1979. and over the past 10 years nearly 4,000 new locomotives and vehicles have entered service. The public sector has made a considerable commitment to investment in rolling stock, and ABB must compete for the contracts that are available.

Mr. Waller: The information that my hon. Friend has given about inward investment in Yorkshire and Humberside is welcome. Is it not worrying, however, that the level of high-technology investment by small and medium-sized enterprises that are British-owned is still lower than that of many of their competitors? Will my hon. Friend seek a fiscal and financial environment in which such enterprises are encouraged to invest in the most high-tech equipment to a greater extent?

Mr. Eggar: We are considering all possible ways of encouraging growth in small and medium-sized enterprises. We recognise the critical importance of providing a climate in which established small companies in particular can grow into medium-sized companies, which often means taking advantage of modern technology, new investment opportunities and so on. Business Links can play an important role in that. We are constantly examining issues such as that raised by my hon. Friend; I hope that he will feel free to discuss the matter with us if he wishes.

Women

Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking to encourage more women to pursue careers in engineering-based and technology-based industries.

Mr. Page: My Department promotes a number of national and regional schemes to encourage women, as well as men, to pursue careers in engineering-based and technology-based industries. Some, such as Insight, Women Into Science and Engineering and Women Into Information Technology, are aimed specifically at girls and women.

Ms Morris: The Minister's answer does not address the question with the urgency that it deserves. Is he aware that, in the last decade, although the number of women gaining engineering degrees has doubled to 15 per cent., the number of chartered engineers who are women has remained at 1 per cent? What action will his Department take to ensure that the skills of women graduating in engineering are not lost to British industry, and that women are encouraged to seek professional engineering status?

Mr. Page: I accept that there is a need to change the perception of the engineering industry, and to get rid of the "oily rag" image. That is why the Government are


promoting 50-odd schemes around the country in an attempt to bring about a greater knowledge of engineering, and in particular the change in attitudes that is at the core of advancement. The Insight Programme, which is being run by the Engineering Training Authority, gives some 500 lower-sixth-form girls a week in universities, and is being supported by British firms.

Mr. Thurnham: I add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is considerable untapped potential for women in engineering? Is he aware that, when I came to the House, my wife took over the running of the engineering business that I started in 1972 and that is now successfully employing more than 500 people?

Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind 'words. As the House knows, some 45 per cent. of the work force is made up by women, and it is only right that they should take their proper place in the professions. My hon. Friend may take comfort from the fact that the proportion of women in management and professional occupations has risen from 25 per cent. in 1984 to some 30 per cent. in 1993.

Iraq

Mr. Miller: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from companies and trade associations about trade with Iraq.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Since 1990, the Department has answered thousands of inquiries about the impact of the sanctions legislation on trade with Iraq, particularly about the humanitarian trade, which is permitted by the United Nations.

Mr. Miller: What action will the Minister take, given the allegations that the French intend to open up trade links with Iraq? Does he not think that that will be a breach of United Nations sanctions?

Mr. Taylor: We are discussing, with our people at the United Nations, the common observance of sanctions policy by all member states. We are aware of reports that certain countries have decided to open up early talks about what might happen after any sanctions are lifted on goods other than humanitarian. We do not, of course, want British industry to be disadvantaged, but that is not itself a justification for Britain not honouring the sanctions policy, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing to have talks to ensure that other countries observe those standards as well.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that Iraq is one of the most evil regimes —if not the most evil—in the world and it would be quite wrong for this country to vote for the lifting of sanctions against that wicked man?

Mr. Taylor: The character of the Iraqi regime is, without question, diabolical, and I do not think that there is any attempt, certainly not by the DTI, to alter our impression. Our repulsion at what is going on in Iraq is very high. On a day-to-day basis, however, Trade Ministers must deal with many issues and we are aware that certain other countries do not have the same upright attitude to sanctions policy. We are in discussion with the Foreign Office, and with the United Nations, on those matters. We are not unaware of the stories coming to us.

Dounreay

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the employment of a managing contractor at Dounreay.

Mr. Page: That is a matter for the Government division of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, which is currently reviewing how best to strengthen the management of operations at Dounreay.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister acknowledge that, although the excellence of Dounreay's work is recognised, its safety record, its environmental acceptability, has rested for many years on an integrated management structure? Is he aware that the new structure proposed for the site—a Government division supervising a partly privatised operation, a partly contractorised operation, with possibly as many as three major contractors on-site—is giving rise to some concern about the direction of the site, about its coherence, about its mission? Will he visit that site and bring his new enthusiasm for efficiency, effectiveness and excellence to bear upon the problems and give the leadership which, at the present time, is lacking'?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman overwhelms me and I would be only too delighted to come and visit Dounreay in the fulness of time. The further introduction of contractors at Dounreay is currently being considered by the UKAEA. One of the options is the appointment of a managing contractor, but at the moment no decision has been made. Safety, which must obviously be paramount at a site like Dounreay, will still be subject to the nuclear site licensing.

Companies House

Mr. Terry Davis: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received favouring the contracting out of functions of Companies House; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: My Department has received representations on the future of Companies House from both supporters and opponents of contracting out. The majority regard Companies House as having made significant improvements over recent years, but there is scope for further improvement. The contracting-out programme provides a framework in which to achieve that.

Mr. Davis: Is it not a fact that on that, as on so many other matters, most respondents disagree with the Government's proposals? How much did it cost the Government to find out what the rest of us have known all along—that most of the customers of Companies House are satisfied with its services and do not want to see them contracted out?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman would do well to exercise a little more caution before swallowing whole the line from the trade unions in this matter. The trade unions had claimed that the SRU report, which is in the Library, had come to a conclusion which was different from that announced by the Government. An examination of the report, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has carried out, shows that the Government's policy is consistent with what is contained in the report.

World Trade Organisation

Mr. Clappison: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The new World Trade Organisation is the custodian of the multilateral trading system, which brings great benefits to the United Kingdom in terms of economic wealth, jobs and consumer choice. We intend to encourage it to develop effectively.

Mr. Clappison: Will my hon. Friend comment on the prospect of China joining the World Trade Organisation, given the recent trade issues between China and the United States?

Mr. Taylor: It is important to bring China into a modern multilateral organisation such as the World Trade Organisation. I am in regular talks with the Commissioner who is responsible for European negotiations with China, Sir Leon Brittan, and the prospects look encouraging. The key matter is that China must come in on acceptable terms, otherwise it could destabilise the whole organisation. We have the same sort of worries about China outside the organisation as the Americans, particularly in the matter of piracy of intellectual property and in connection with the music industry, which is a great contributor to our external trade performance.

Mr. MacShane: Can the Minister give some guidance on whom the Government will back as the new director general of the World Trade Organisation? The Minister will know that Mr. Salinas of Mexico dropped out after being linked, via his brother, to the murder of an important politician. The European Union is backing Mr. Raimondi of Italy, who is a strong advocate of social links in world trade. What is Britain's line on the next director general?

Mr. Taylor: It is a jolly good job that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for our discussions because he has named the wrong Italian, but never mind. Mr. Ruggiero, the Italian, is the solidly backed candidate of the European Union and we have never demurred from that. At the last count on an official trawl, he had 59 votes and Mr. Kim, whom I have met, who has been to see me, and who is an impressive candidate, had only 28 votes. President Salinas had about 27 votes and has backed out.
We are urging all other nations to rally round a clear leader, because it is most important for the World Trade Organisation to get its act together quickly. It can do that credibly only if it has an effective director general. We do not wish to see any uncertainty beyond 15 March, when Mr. Sutherland ceases his temporary period in office.

Earth Observation Satellites

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use his Department makes of the information available from earth observation satellites.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Department of Trade and Industry works with industry and other Government Departments to identify those practical applications of satellite data. The British National Space Centre has sponsored a first round of jointly funded demonstrator programmes with industrial users, including predictions of sugar beet yield, monitoring environmentally sensitive areas, studying coastal zone erosions, identification of offshore oil drilling sites and locations of fishing grounds. I am pleased to announce that an invitation to bid for a second round of demonstrators was announced last week.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that British industry plays a part in space technology of the kind that is involved in earth observation satellites? Can he assure the House that British industry is getting a fair deal from our membership of the European Space Agency?

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to say that the British space industry is one of the most effective in Europe. It is involved in several joint ventures, such as Matra Marconi Space, with the French. It is a big employer in the United Kingdom and makes a considerable contribution to our balance of payments. It is important for the European Space Agency to devise much more efficient programmes because it currently depends too much on juste retort.
If we could get a much more efficient system of allocating contracts, I am sure that British industry would do even better. It is certainly being backed by the Government's participation in ESA programmes through the Department of Trade and Industry and, I am delighted to say, in earth observation, with other Departments such as the Department of Transport.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of liaison with our European partners in the European Space Agency? Does he realise that Britain can achieve little by itself in that important subject, and that much more can be achieved, especially in monitoring the environment, if we co-ordinate and liaise with our European partners?

Mr. Taylor: I have no doubt about that. We are firmly committed to the European Space Agency. We contribute considerable sums of money to it. However, it needs to be much more efficient in the way in which it exercises its affairs and allocates its programmes, and in its allocation of the science budget, which is the responsibility of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.
We have said that we do not want to reduce the scope of the science budget, but that we wish it to be delivered more efficiently. In relation to each of those matters, I am sure that, at the ministerial conference, where I shall be representing this country, we shall achieve much more progress with the ESA and, therefore, much better value from the considerable use that Britain makes of information coming from satellites in space.

Points of Order

Madam Speaker: There is a point of order from Mr. Jopling.

Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, you were kind enough to respond to a point of order from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), when you said that he was correct in his assertion that, when a Bill receives its Second Reading and is referred to Committee, the Committee should reflect the views of the House when it voted.
Of course, I agree that that is an important matter and that it should be taken into account, but other important matters should also be given due weight, most particularly the views of hon. Members who spoke in the Second Reading debate. Would you be kind enough to clarify the position?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says. Several matters have to be taken into account when hon. Members are nominated to serve on Standing Committees. Standing Order No. 86 embraces them in the words:
the qualifications of those Members nominated and … the composition of the House".
The important point for me to emphasise is that the interpretation of Standing Order No. 86 is normally left to the Committee of Selection, which has been nominated and endorsed by the House. That Committee is given the task of making nominations. Strictly speaking, these matters are not for me.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is known to you that, on 8 March, the Table Office wrote to me to say:
the Lord Advocate has made it clear that in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.
My point of order is this. Is the decision a matter for the Table Office, or is it a matter for the Crown Office? The Crown Office's objection to naming individuals other than those already named in previous questions seems an evasion of its responsibilities. My complaint is with the Crown Office, and not with the Table Office.

Madam Speaker: When a question has been refused and the hon. Member concerned wishes to make representations to the Speaker on the matter, the practice is for those to be made privately; they should not be raised by way of a point of order, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing Member of the House, realises.
However, these questions are covered by Scottish Office answers to other questions in the hon. Gentleman's name. I confirm that the Department's answers preclude the hon. Gentleman from putting further questions of that sort for a particular period.

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for giving you only a few minutes notice of this point of order.
I have in my possession a copy of a Select Committee report issued in November—House of Commons document 385—which makes the strongest possible representations to the Government that time on the Floor of the House must be given to discussing the implications of the draft Euro-proposal for a common format of visa, with a Euro-symbol stamped thereon. The Committee thought the issue so important that it published a separate report, reprinting paragraphs and documents, and making it clear to the Government that it believed that the issue had to he debated at an early date in the House. The Committee may take the view, as I do, that a common format visa will lead inevitably to the mutual recognition of Euro-visas.
Only yesterday, the Leader of the House sent the Committee a letter, dated 7 March, relating to the report of 20 November. It said that, although he thought that there was indeed a case for a debate, we could not have it now, although we might have it soon in European Standing Committee B.
However, I have been advised that a specific proposal to establish such visas is to be considered by the Council of Home Affairs Ministers in Brussels tomorrow. It has been reported, rightly or wrongly, that the United Kingdom Home Office Minister will agree to it.
I appreciate that our powers are limited but, if a Select Committee says that we should debate this vital issue and if it issues a special report, is it not scandalous that there is to be a meeting in Brussels tomorrow to decide the issue, especially given the fact that many hon. Members—of, I think, all parties—believe that a common Euro-symbol visa is effectively the beginning of the end of border controls?
I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, whether any step can be taken to ensure an emergency debate before tomorrow, so that the House may express an opinion. What is the point of having Select Committees to establish a unanimous opinion if we cannot discuss the issue, and if the Government are to go to Brussels tomorrow and agree to the proposal?

Mr. Robert Key: Calm down, Teddy.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the hon. Gentleman may not think so, democracy matters a great deal. This country belongs to the people. [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I hardly need further comments on a point of order that has been explained to the House very clearly and with which I can deal.
As the hon. Gentleman realises, the issue that he has raised has to do with the arrangement of business; it is not a matter for the Speaker. The arrangement of business is one of the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. I suggest that, as soon as he can, the hon. Gentleman attempts to raise the matter with him, to see whether there can be a change of business.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is no doubt that you are a doughty champion of the rights of the House. If my right hon. or hon. Friend goes to Brussels tomorrow and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East


(Sir T. Taylor) said, stitches up an arrangement with other European Ministers, what can the House then do about it? What can you do to help the House today to sustain its position, powers and influence?

Madam Speaker: If I had received a request for a private notice question or for a debate under Standing Order No. 20 by midday today, there could perhaps have been changes in the business. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) raised the issue, which is barely a point of order, with me at precisely 3.20 pm, 10 minutes before he raised it on the Floor of the House.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I did not know before.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not have known before, but I cannot change the business of the House unless the proper procedures agreed by the House arc followed at the correct time. Much as I might be sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman and perhaps others are seeking to do, I have to uphold the procedures of the House.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In case I appeared discourteous, I must point out that the letter was sent yesterday and arrived this morning, but that I received it only at 3.15 pm. The meeting is tomorrow; what the blazes are we to do?

Madam Speaker: I cannot give any account of Paddington Bear the postman or why, if the letter was posted yesterday, it was received only late today, as presumably it was posted in the same building. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done his best to raise the matter, but I repeat that I have to follow the procedures of the House and cannot accept what he is saying at this stage. Had it been raised with me by midday, I could perhaps have done something about it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is Paddington Bear really Postman Pat?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member is always on the ball—I am very grateful.

Mr. John Gunnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Secretary of State for Health for an opportunity to explain to us how it was that Leeds general infirmary proved to have the nearest bed for a brain-damaged patient in Kent?
The patient had to be flown by helicopter from Sussex to Leeds, necessitating a 12-hour delay in treatment following a road accident. After a seven-hour operation, his condition is clearly still critical. Has the Secretary of State asked for an opportunity to explain to us why more than half the country was without beds for a brain-damaged patient? Surely that represents a serious emergency nationally for the health service.

Madam Speaker: I have had no request from a Minister to make a statement on that or any other matter.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Home Secretary has been in his place and has heard the exchanges between several hon. Members and yourself, if, bearing in mind what has

been said, he is anxious to make a statement to the House, perhaps at 7 o'clock, would you view such a request sympathetically?

Madam Speaker: I do not have to give sympathetic consideration to a statement. I am informed by the Minister concerned that he will make a statement. I have made this point to the House on several occasions. That is the procedure of the House. If a Minister wishes to make a statement at any time, I have to hear that statement.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you agree that if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T,. Taylor) says, the letter was written yesterday and arrived today, bearing in mind that the Government may make a decision tomorrow and that the House will debate the matter at a later stage, that is a totally unacceptable situation? What powers do you have to force Ministers to take proper account of the wishes of the House, so that matters can be properly and publicly debated before the people of this country?

Madam Speaker: I have no powers whatever in that respect. If the House at some time wishes to give me such powers, that point may be considered by the Procedure Committee. At present, I have no powers or authority in that respect.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The delay from the time of publication of the report to the answer received points to the fact that the Government do not want a debate on the matter. Surely the House should not he manipulated by Ministers, who have ensured that there is no opportunity at the proper time in the House today to move that there be a change of business. I suggest that you should have some powers to inform the Government that this is totally unacceptable, and to defend the rights of Members of the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough points of order now. The whole House understands what has taken place. All I can say is that there are Ministers on the Treasury Bench at present who have been here throughout the exchanges. I expect that those Ministers have taken note of the strong feelings in the House on the matter.

BILLS PRESENTED

CHILD SUPPORT

Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Alistair Burt, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to child support maintenance and other maintenance; and to provide for a child maintenance bonus: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Gordon McMaster, supported by Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Adam Ingram,


Mrs. Irene Adams, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Dr. Norman A. Godman, presented a Bill to make it unlawful in Scotland to discriminate against disabled persons in respect of employment and in other circumstances, and to establish a Disability Rights Commission for Scotland; to make provision for access to polling stations and voting by disabled persons in Scotland; to place certain duties on local authorities, education authorities and other bodies in Scotland in relation to disabled persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 March, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

VALUING WOMEN'S UNWAGED WORK

Ms Mildred Gordon, supported by Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Alan Simpson, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Anne Campbell and Mrs. Irene Adams, presented a Bill to require government departments and other public bodies to include in the production of statistics relating to the gross domestic product and satellite accounts a calculation of the quantity and value of the unwaged work of women: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

TAXIS (PROTECTION OF PASSENGERS)

Mrs. Jane Kennedy, supported by Ms Rachel Squire, Ms Glenda Jackson, Ms Ann Coffey, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Derek Enright, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Kevin Barron, presented a Bill to make it unlawful for any person who

has been convicted of prescribed sexual offences or offences of violence against the person to drive any taxi, minicab or private hire vehicle; to place appropriate duties upon licensing authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 24 March, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

TAMPONS (SAFETY)

Ms Dawn Primarolo, supported by Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Harriet Harman, Ms Clare Short, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. John Austin-Walker and Mr. David Hinchliffe, presented a Bill to make provision for tampon packaging and advertisements for tampons to carry certain warnings and information, and to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for these purposes; to lay upon the Secretary of State duties with respect to research into, and publicity for, tampons and health; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ms Jean Corston, supported by Ms Clare Short, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Glenda Jackson, Ms Angela Eagle, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms Joan Ruddock, Ms Diane Abbott, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mrs. Alice Mahon, presented a Bill to place duties upon Her Majesty's Government both to undertake a publicity campaign to call public attention to the criminality of domestic violence and to the opportunities for redress, and to co-ordinate policy for refuge provision for victims of domestic violence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Vegetarianism

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national body to promote the health advantages of vegetarianism.
I declare my interests. I am the parliamentary adviser to the London Beekeepers Association, and I am a vegetarian. However, I am nobody's turnip. I came to vegetarianism fairly late in my somewhat dissolute life; it has been a journey of discovery. My decision was based partly on health grounds, and partly on animal welfare considerations.
I am, however, no food fascist. If people wish to eat meat and run the risk of dying a horrible, lingering, hormone-induced death after sprouting extra breasts and large amounts of hair, it is, of course, entirely up to them. I would not even hold such ill-advised people personally responsible for the appalling cruelty inflicted on countless millions of living creatures to satisfy the desire for meat. All I ask is that everyone should be fully aware of the consequences of their own habits and the healthy eating alternatives available.
I am just old enough to remember the second world war. Alas, I played no heroic part in that great struggle, but I note with some interest that, at the end of the war, because of rationing and constant advice from the Department of Health, the civilian population emerged healthier than ever before. "Dig for Victory" was a most apposite entreaty.
The Government campaign during the previous war should have been continued, because the greatest killer in our society is ignorance about our own bodies. Indeed, a quick look around the Chamber probably makes my point better than I can in these few words. I see overweight, under-exercised, stressed-out bodies, many of which are daily stuffed with cholesterol-rich food, nicotine and alcohol.
A Department of Health report published last week revealed that English men and women are getting fatter and smoking and drinking too much. Regrettably, in that respect we are very much in step with those we represent. Among those surveyed, it was felt that stress was adversely affecting people's health, and that many of them were clearly swallowing their anxieties in the type of food they ate. Stress, which probably affects most Members of Parliament, often leads to a poor dietary regime, which in turn leads to major health problems. The link between stress and a poor diet is undeniable.
"The Health of the Nation" urges the British population to increase their consumption of fruit, vegetables and fibre. All mention of meat products, especially red meat, is played down. Evidence from bodies such as the World Health Organisation points conclusively to the fact that a vegetarian diet closely matches healthy eating guidelines.
There is a mass of statistical evidence, especially from the United States of America, to prove that a vegetarian diet saves not only lives but vast amounts of money in fewer demands on health services. The total annual direct medical costs savings from avoiding meat and tobacco are estimated in the States to be as high as $80 billion a year.
Studies show that twice as many non-vegetarians as vegetarians have been hospitalised during the past year, and that the use of prescription drugs has also about

doubled. Several other studies have shown that the prevalence of hypertension among vegetarians is about a third to a half of that of non-vegetarians, even when alcohol, tobacco and caffeinated beverage use is controlled.
Cancer, as we all know, is one of the western society's greatest killers. One in three Americans develop cancer each year, more than 1 million cases are reported and diagnosed each year, and medical costs total around $35 billion each year. According to the National Research Council, 30 to 60 per cent. of cancers are attributable to diet. A study in Germany found that vegetarian men faced less than half the risk of a cancer death, and vegetarian women about a 25 per cent. lower risk compared with non-vegetarians.
It is now accepted in all quarters that vegetarians suffer 30 per cent. less heart disease, which is the biggest killer in the United Kingdom, and 40 per cent. less cancer, which is the second biggest killer. There are fewer cases of vegetarians suffering from arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis, kidney failure and so on—the list goes on and on.
A vegetarian is likely to save the national health service an average of £40,000 during a lifetime. Of all food poisoning cases, 95 per cent. occur in animal foods, and as a result, meat eaters suffer many more days off work because of food poisoning. An old joke in the east end is: "When the bottom has fallen out of your world, eat one of Harry's hamburgers and let the world fall out of your bottom". There are more than 2.5 million cases of salmonella, listeria and e-coli 157 each year. That represents an enormous real cost to what is left of British industry.
Not only do veggies live longer: they look better. Vegetarians are 10 per cent. leaner than omnivores. When omnivores kick the meat habit, they lose an average of 10 to 22 lb. Ministers should bear that in mind, given that a target has been set to reduce obesity in this country to no more than 6 per cent. in men and 8 per cent. in women by 2005.
Persuasive though the health reasons are, there are other reasons for vegetarianism, too. Meat production involves several serious environmental problems. Many of the most serious water pollution incidents reported to the National Rivers Authority every year are due to slurry and sewage from livestock, and slurry being spread on land contributes to acid rain. Moreover, livestock create the single largest source of methane emissions in the United Kingdom, adding to the greenhouse effect.
Meat production also uses far more fossil fuels than the production of fruit and vegetables. Although 85 per cent. of Britain's agricultural land is used for meat production, getting protein from meat is monstrously inefficient: 10 kg of vegetable protein fed to livestock will supply only 1 kg of meat protein, and while meat protein produced on 10 hectares of land will feed only two people, soya protein grown on the same area would feed 61 people.
Millions of people all over the world are dying of starvation, while the world feeds 38 per cent. of all crops to animals rather than to human beings, so as to produce meat, most of which is consumed in the industrialised countries. Add to that the impact of over-grazing, which produces deserts and deforestation, and the price of meat becomes too high for the world to pay.


The central question is: if vegetarianism is so good, how come everyone does not embrace it today? That question ignores the fact that 2,000 people a week are becoming vegetarians, with the fastest growth among teenagers—but even that increase is simply not enough. Part of the reason why it is not greater lies in the years of accumulated prejudice against vegetarianism—for example, the image of the veggie as a spotty nerd sporting a woolly hat, an anorak and socks worn under open-toed sandals—[Interruption.] How unlike myself, Madam Speaker.
Such a caricature is fast fading, but vegetarianism is still seen by those in authority as a mild form of eccentricity, to be pitied and patronised. The "real men eat meat" syndrome—[Interruption]—characterised by those on the Government Benches, is still with us. That is all part of the myth carefully fostered by the meat industry—a powerful industry heavily hacked by Government, with both resources and propaganda.
The Meat and Livestock Commission has a staff of about 600 and an annual budget of about £43 million, some £4 million of which comes direct from the Government. Compare that with the Fresh Fruit. and Vegetable Information Bureau, run as one of the accounts of a public relations consultancy, which has a budget of about £130,000 and four staff paid by the PR firm.
In other words, in terms of ability to inform, to advertise and to influence, there is no contest. One has only to think of the £10 million campaign by the MLC, "Recipe for Love", or the £14 million spent on the "Meat to Live" campaign, to realise that the dice are loaded. Massive subsidies are handed out by the taxpayer to the meat-producing industry.
We need to redress this terrible imbalance, and the purpose of my Bill is to set up a fruit and vegetable commission funded by the industry and by Government, with the Government using some of the massive savings gained by the health service when a growing proportion of the population switches to vegetarianism.
A vital part of the work of that new commission would be public education. People in this country are poisoning themselves through ignorance, and the Government in part connive at that scandalous and eminently avoidable situation. My Bill would seek to alleviate that ignorance, and to promote a healthier and a happier nation.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As a partial vegetarian for many more years than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I must tell him that we do not need an extra publicly created body. Incidentally, I do not regard any of the characteristics that the hon. Gentleman attributed to vegetarians as applicable to me. He also said that listeria came from animals, whereas I thought that in general it came from cheese.
If the hon. Gentleman wants a public body to promote fruit and vegetables, why does he not give that as an extra responsibility to the Covent Garden market authority, which already exists? He claimed that one in three Americans develops cancer each year—but that would mean 80 million people a year, and I do not believe that figure.

Mr. Tony Banks: During their lifetime.

Mr. Bottomley: That may be so, but that is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
If we imagine that, in just one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, in which there are 35,000 farmers, one third of them full-time—all farmers had to turn all their fields to set-aside, we should discover what the land could and would look like without the farmers.
As a final point, I would say to those who like the look of sheep and cows in the fields that one cannot have livestock without dead stock. I recommend that people make up their own minds about what they eat and supply, and the House ought to send the hon. Gentleman off to Covent Garden today.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 66.

Division No. 97]
[3.54 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Khabra, Piara S


Ainger, Nick
Lewis, Terry


Allen, Graham
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Livingstone, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Barnes, Harry
McAllion, John


Barron, Kevin
Mackinlay, Andrew


Battle, John
McMaster, Gordon


Bayley, Hugh
Madden, Max


Berry, Roger
Maddock, Diana


Burden, Richard
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Byers, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Miller, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Canavan, Dennis
Mullin, Chris


Chisholm, Malcolm
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
O'Hara, Edward


Coffey, Ann
Pearson, Ian


Cousins, Jim
Pope, Greg


Cox, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Dalyell, Tam
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Davidson, Ian
Primarolo, Dawn


Dowd, Jim
Rendel, David


Eagle, Ms Angela
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Eastham, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Sedgemore, Brian


Fatchett, Derek
Sheerman, Barry


Flynn, Paul
Simpson, Alan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Skinner, Dennis


Galbraith, Sam
Soley, Clive


Gapes, Mike
Spink, Dr Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Gordon, Mildered
Steinberg, Gerry


Gunnell, John
Stott, Roger


Hain, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hall, Mike
Timms, Stephen


Hanson, David
Tipping, Paddy


Hardy, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Heppell, John
Walley, Joan


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hinchliffe, David
Wray, Jimmy


Hutton, John



Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Jean Corston and


Jowell, Tessa
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Keen, Alan







NOES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jessel, Toby


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Beith, Rt Hon A J
King, Rt Hon Tom


Booth, Hartley
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Budgen, Nicholas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Butcher, John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Pawsey, James


Day, Stephen
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dicks, Terry
Riddick, Graham


Dixon, Don
Robathan, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Dover, Den
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Dunn, Bob
Shaw, David (Dover)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Fishburn, Dudley
Speller, John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Sweeney, Walter


Gill, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Godsiff, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Tracey, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Harris, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Haselhurst, Alan



Hawkins, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Hendry, Charles
Mr. David Wilshire and


Jenkin, Bernard
Mr. Julian Brazier.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. Alan Simpson.

VEGETARIANISM

Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to establish a national body to promote the health advantages of vegetarianism: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time upon Friday 21 April, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.
At the beginning of last year's debate, I said that successive Home Secretaries had looked forward to the time when they would no longer have to come to the House to argue for the continuation of the exceptional powers first introduced in 1974. I also noted that, for most of the intervening 20 years, that had been very much a hope rather than an expectation. By the time that I came to wind up our short debate last year, the IRA had reinforced the point by launching a number of mortar bombs at Heathrow airport, thereby endangering the lives of many people from this country and overseas.
For nearly six months after that debate, terrorist activity continued at a high level in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A further five members of the security forces were killed in Northern Ireland, and a further 96 were injured. On this side of the Irish sea, it was only the skilful interception at Heysham on 12 July of a trailer containing a two-tonne bomb that prevented untold destruction in one of our towns or cities.
Nine days later, a bag containing explosives and other bomb-making material was denied to terrorists only when a passenger on an Oxford-Reading train removed it in the hope that it might contain something more valuable.
As recently as 13 August, the IRA planted two bicycle bombs: one in Brighton, which was safely defused; and the other a device outside Woolworth's in a busy shopping street in Bognor. It was pure good fortune that the Bognor device, and the subsequent bomb found on 22 August in a litter bin outside Laura Ashley in Regent Street, did not produce the same tragic consequences as the two explosions in Bridge street, Warrington.
Since then, the IRA cessation of violence and the subsequent loyalist ceasefire have transformed the situation. For the first time for many years, the people of Northern Ireland can go about their daily business without fear of violence from republican or loyalist paramilitaries. For the first time for many years, the imminent threat of IRA violence in the towns and cities of Great Britain has receded.
The Government have done, and will continue to do, everything in their power to consolidate the ceasefire into a lasting peace. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 21 October that we were prepared to make a working assumption that the cessation was intended to be permanent and, accordingly, exploratory dialogue began between officials and representatives of Sinn Fein on 9 December. Shortly afterwards, exploratory dialogue with so-called loyalist groups began. Both sets of dialogue continue.
It remains the Government's earnest hope that those who have previously supported the use of violence to advance their cause can be brought fully and irrevocably


within the political process. That of course means that there needs to be substantial progress on the issue of decommissioning arms and explosives.

Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. and learned Friend read the extraordinary report that Mr. Adams and various IRA people are bringing a case in the European Court to claim vast sums of damages for being excluded from this country? Is he aware that that has caused outrage among my constituents, and no doubt many other people, who feel that it would be monstrous if huge sums of the taxpayer's money were extracted by those people, after all the misery and suffering that they have caused for years? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us some reassurance about that?

Mr. Howard: I can understand the outrage to which my hon. Friend refers. The case was brought in the courts of the United Kingdom. It has been referred, on a point of law, to the European Court of Justice. Reports that the European Commission has made representations in support of the Adams claim are inaccurate. There is an exception in the provisions in the European treaty for free movement of people, for purposes of maintaining security, and I therefore do not share the opinions that have been expressed, in the newspaper reports to which my hon. Friend referred, about the likely outcome of that case.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. John Greenway: rose—

Mr. Howard: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

Mr. John Greenway: The speech of my right hon. and learned Friend thus far and the most recent intervention have been about terrorism emanating from Ireland, and possibly from Northern Ireland, spreading into the rest of the United Kingdom. Does he agree, however, that there is great anxiety about the terrorist threat from outside the United Kingdom in respect of other matters?
Is it not the case that the two outrages in the past year, which have involved the serious injury of no less than 18 people, were not the work of the IRA but of an entirely different terrorist threat? In York and Harrogate, no less than five incendiary devices were activated, which were believed to be the work of the animal rights movement.
Obviously, we need those powers, regardless of the continuing peace process in Northern Ireland, which of course we all want.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the continuing danger from terrorism, quite apart from Northern Irish terrorism. I agree that we shall certainly need powers to tackle terrorism on a permanent basis. Whether they would need to be precisely the same powers that we have needed in the past 20 years is a matter that falls for consideration. When the appropriate time has been reached, that matter will be given the consideration that it deserves.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).

Rev. Martin Smyth: We have been speaking about exclusion orders as well, and we have

noticed that there is to be a lifting of exclusion orders as Her Majesty's Government seek to respond to what is happening. Does the Home Secretary agree that, although the Ulster Unionist party has disagreed with the concept of temporary exile within the United Kingdom, the IRA-Sinn Fein have not lifted any of the exclusion orders that they have imposed on the people that they have expelled from their homes—never mind the hundreds that they have expelled from earth?

Mr. Howard: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and let me give him an assurance. The decisions that have been taken about individual exclusion orders by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and those decisions that I have taken, which I shall explain to the House in a moment or two, have been taken on security grounds, and on no other grounds, and will continue to be taken on precisely that basis, and that basis alone.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and then I must make progress.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that, irrespective of what any European Court says about Mr. Adams and his allegation that he has lost his rights by being denied entry, this Government, our Government, my Government, will take no notice, will flatly refuse to recognise his so-called rights and flatly refuse to pay him, or any of his ilk, any money at all?

Mr. Howard: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall never authorise any payment of damages as a result of that case.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I must make progress.
The publication of the "Framework for the Future" document means that there is now a comprehensive set of ideas to stimulate political dialogue among parties committed to constitutional methods. But the subject of today's debate is not the political process as such, but its implications for the future of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. In particular, I wish to explain to the House why, more than six months after the start of the IRA ceasefire, the Government are seeking the continuation of the Act in its entirety for a further 12 months.
Our position since 31 August has been characterised by two complementary responses. As threat levels have reduced and the immediate prospect of terrorist violence has receded, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have kept in close contact with our security advisers and have agreed to the lifting of restrictions which have no longer seemed justified in the new situation.
The broadcasting restrictions against Sinn Fein were lifted last September. In October, all the remaining closure orders on border roads in Northern Ireland were rescinded, and the exclusion orders against Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were revoked. Since then, the presence of the Army on the streets of Northern Ireland has been greatly reduced and the Metropolitan and City


police have been able to scale down the high-profile armed patrols which they had been operating in central London.
But we are not prepared to do anything which would expose the people of our country to unnecessary risk. The troubles of the past 25 years have claimed the lives of more than 3,000 people and have injured many more. It would in our view be wholly irresponsible to dismantle our defences while the paramilitary organisations remain intact, while they continue to carry out brutal punishment beatings, while their command structures, weapons and explosives remain in place, and while they retain the capability to resume violence at very short notice.

Mr. Julian Brazier: On the point about dismantling our security apparatus, will the Home Secretary comment on the words of the late Lord Diplock, delivered more than 20 years ago, about dealing with cases involving the security forces? He said:
the jury … should remind themselves that the postulated balancing of risk against risk … is not undertaken in the calm analytical atmosphere of the court-room … but in the brief second or two which the accused had to decide whether to shoot or not and under all the stresses to which he was exposed".
Does the Home Secretary agree that, in considering cases such as that of Clegg and the two guardsmen, judges should think about those words very carefully?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows that I am unable to comment on particular cases. However, I agree entirely with the generality of the quotation by Lord Diplock.

Mr. Madden: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how often he has visited Northern Ireland since 31 August, how many community and political groups he has met, and how many of those groups have urged him to renew today's legislation? I have paid two such visits to Northern Ireland—the most recent of which was last week—and all the political groups there, Unionist and republican, emphasised the fact that the suspension of the exclusion and detention powers would greatly reinforce the peace process. Why does the Home Secretary disagree with them?

Mr. Howard: I have no doubt that we shall hear from the political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in due course during the debate.
The hon. Gentleman stretches the credulity of the House if he suggests that it would be more sensible for the House to base its judgments on his reports—after two visits to Northern Ireland—than on the very careful examination of the question which was undertaken by Mr. John Rowe, to whose report I am about to come. He undertook extensive consultation in Northern Ireland, he talked to many people, and he reached a clear view about the necessity of the provisions.
I have not been to Northern Ireland since 30 August, but those members of the Government who have direct responsibility for Northern Ireland are there day after day, and they are in an excellent position—a position infinitely superior to that of the hon. Gentleman on the basis of his two visits—to form a view.
Against the background to which I have referred, let me return to the specific provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and explain why we believe it would be premature to allow any of its provisions to lapse.
First, we have given proper weight to the conclusions reached by Mr. John Rowe QC, who has carried out the customary annual review of the legislation. I am sure that members of all parties will want to record their thanks to Mr. Rowe for a thorough report, produced in the light of very widespread consultations.
Mr. Rowe's clear conclusion, reached at the end of an entirely independent scrutiny, was that the Act should now be renewed in its entirety for a further 12 months. He recognised that the moment might come when one or more provisions of the legislation would no longer be necessary, and he rightly observed that the making of this order would not rule out the possibility of change during the next 12 months. An order can be made under section 27 of the Act at any time to discontinue specific provisions of the Act, and he recommended that the Government should keep that possibility in mind.
That was Mr. Rowe's recommendation. In explaining why the Government have decided to accept it, I want to deal particularly with the powers of detention and exclusion, which remain the most exceptional features of the legislation. I also intend to say something about the longer-term future of the legislation, if, as we all hope, the present cessation leads to a lasting peace.
First, there are two aspects to the continuing need for the powers. Since 1984, a substantial part of the legislation has been available for use, in respect of not only Northern Irish terrorism but international terrorism. I need hardly remind the House that the single most devastating terrorist crime in this country was not an act of Irish terrorism, but the Lockerbie air disaster, in which no fewer than 270 people were killed.
Since then, the threat to this country from international terrorism has not gone away. The car bombs outside the Israeli embassy and Balfour house last July were a reminder of the particular vulnerability of the Jewish community. The Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie remains in force, and, with the growth of Islamic radicalism, we need to remain vigilant against the possibility that Britain will be used as a base for plotting acts of violence overseas and raising money for terrorist purposes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In what way would the prevention of terrorism legislation that we are considering have done anything about Lockerbie? If the Government want the truth about Lockerbie, they had better talk seriously to the intelligence community, to Sir Peter Marychurch, Sir Colin Figures, American intelligence, Sir Charles Powell and, yes, the former Prime Minister.

Mr. Howard: I know of the hon. Gentleman's long interest in Lockerbie and all its ramifications, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him down those byways today.
It is no part of the Government's case that this legislation is the only, or even the primary, weapon in our armoury against international terrorism. The Immigration Acts and the general provisions of the criminal law have a crucial part to play. But if the Prevention of Terrorism Act were simply swept away without any thought to what might need to go in its place, we would undoubtedly be making the job of the police much more difficult.


We are not dealing here merely with theoretical possibilities. The recent charges in connection with last July's bombings followed arrests under section 14 of the legislation and extensions for 48 hours beyond the initial two days' detention.
Secondly, the Government agree with Mr. Rowe that it is too early yet to conclude that parts of the legislation are no longer needed in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. Let me take in turn the two key powers of detention and exclusion.
As a result of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan, there is already a difference in the way in which the powers of detention operate between international terrorism and Northern Irish terrorism. The Act allows the police to detain suspects for up to 48 hours on their own authority, and up to a maximum of five days beyond that on my authority or that of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland.
In the light of the Brogan case, however, we gave an assurance that, in international terrorism cases, the period of extension would not exceed 48 hours. We are satisfied that our practice in such cases is already fully consistent with the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
We concluded that we could not sensibly agree to a similar restriction in Northern Irish terrorism cases, given the exceptional risks posed to the security of this country. We therefore made a specific, narrowly drawn derogation from the convention to enable us to retain executive extensions of detention for a maximum of five days. The validity of that derogation was subsequently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brannigan and McBride.

Mr. Chris Mullin: This is what worries many of us who oppose parts of the Act. If people can be detained for seven days and nights, it will be possible to get anyone to confess to anything during that time. Does that concern the Home Secretary?

Mr. Howard: If there were any substance in the hon. Gentleman's allegation, it might indeed concern me. I must tell him, however, that the history of some of the questioning that has taken place during extended periods of detention gives the lie to his assertion.

Mr. Tom King: The point, surely, is not the length of the period of detention. Is it not a fact that, in perfect conformity with the European convention, those responsible for the Eksund activities were detained by the French authorities for two years, but it was the authority of a judicial officer that enabled them to be detained in that way? The idea that anyone detained for more than seven days will confess to anything does not accord with the European convention.

Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It is always essential to keep in mind the distinction between form and substance.
We have continued to keep the need for the derogation under review, and have considered the matter again in the light of the ceasefire. In the first eight months of last year, there were 377 extensions of detention throughout the United Kingdom, the overwhelming majority in Northern

Ireland. In the more than six months since then, there have been just 18 extensions, five of them related to international terrorism.
The periods of detention have tended to decrease; the only instance in which detention has exceeded four days since the ceasefire involved the complex investigation of the Newry post office murder.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I wonder about the Home Secretary's figures. Page 1 of the "Home Office Statistical Bulletin" clearly tells us that 61 people were detained in Great Britain in 1994 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and that all but one were detained in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. If I heard him aright, the Home Secretary said that five people had been detained in relation to international terrorism. Is the Home Secretary right, or is the statistical bulletin right?

Mr. Howard: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we are talking about different periods of time. I was talking about the period leading up to the ceasefire and the period since then.
Provided that the ceasefire holds, there is every reason to believe that the number of cases in which the police will need to seek extensions of detention will be very small, and the number of occasions on which they request extensions of more than 48 hours smaller still. However, as the Newry incident illustrates, it is too early for us to be satisfied that these powers could be suspended, or our limited derogation from the European convention on human rights withdrawn.
The Northern Ireland paramilitary groups retain the capability to resume their attacks at very short notice, and investigations into past crimes continue on both sides of the Irish sea. The Government accept the view of the police that it would be wrong at this early stage to withdraw any of their existing powers of arrest and detention.
In chapters 5 and 7 of his report, Mr. Rowe analyses the arguments for giving the judiciary responsibility for determining both extensions of detention and exclusion orders. His conclusion is that these processes are properly executive in character and that a judge would
be exercising a function which could be called judicial only because he happens to be a judge by occupation.
That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
This issue has been extensively debated in the past, and I do not intend to say more about it now, except that, while the need for these temporary provisions remains, we do not believe that it would be right or practicable to introduce an innovation that has been consistently rejected by all those who have taken an independent look at the legislation since 1974, at the invitation of successive Governments.
Exclusion has always been the most difficult part of the legislation, particularly for those of us who are proud to call ourselves unionists. Since the House first debated these provisions in 1974, there have always been some who, while wholly supportive of other parts of the legislation, have had misgivings about denying British citizens access to part of their own country.


I understand and sympathise with those concerns, but when faced with a determined terrorist assault on our most fundamental human rights, we have had, reluctantly, to countenance some measures which in more normal times would not be acceptable.
At the time of the debate a year ago, there were 80 exclusion orders in force, nine made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and 71 by me or my predecessors. By the time of the IRA ceasefire, the figure of 80 had reduced to 74. Since then, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have reviewed the case for each of the remaining orders in the light of the assessment of our security advisers.
My right hon. and learned Friend was able to conclude last month that all his remaining orders should be lifted. On 17 February, I announced that, with the help of the Metropolitan police, the RUC and the security service, I was considering all the 56 orders for which I was responsible. I have now revoked a further 16. There are now just 40 orders in force.
I have considered whether it would be possible to go further and lift all the remaining orders. I have not done so, for two reasons. First, it is clear that, if the ceasefires were to break down, we might receive very little, if any, warning, and without doubt many of the key targets would, as before, be on this side of the water. Secondly, the police remain satisfied that among those still excluded are some who would be likely to play some part in mainland terrorism were it to resume.
I welcome the shift in the position of the Labour party on exclusion orders. Last year, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), speaking from the Front Bench, described exclusion orders as an example of internal exile of a kind previously practised in this century only by Stalin, Mussolini and Franco. In a radio interview this morning, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that, although he dislikes exclusion orders, he accepts that I should be able to reactivate them with 24 hours notice if the ceasefires were to break down.
What the hon. Member for Blackburn overlooks is that, if all exclusion orders were to be lifted now, there would be nothing to stop those people coming here well before any possible breakdown of the ceasefire, to make preparations for renewed attacks. That is not a debating point. It is a point that goes to the heart of the exercise of these powers in the cause of protecting the safety of our people.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that point in the course of his speech. For my part, I shall continue to keep the need for each of the orders under review, but I am not prepared to take unnecessary risks at this stage, in the face of the clear view of the police and our other security advisers.
Let me finally say something about the way forward. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 are explicitly temporary pieces of legislation, and it has always been the Government's position that exceptional powers should not be retained any longer than necessary.
There are therefore two questions that will need to be addressed if, as we all hope, the ceasefires continue to hold. First, how long will some or all of these exceptional

powers need to be maintained, whether in force or in reserve? Secondly, even in the longer term, will there be a need for some specific, permanent counter terrorism legislation in the light of the continuing threat from international terrorism?
On the first, the Government whole-heartedly accept Mr. Rowe's recommendation that they should keep the need for the existing powers under close review. If the moment comes when one or more of them could be discontinued, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or I can lay the necessary order under this Act or the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 at any time.
Moreover, Mr. Rowe's regular reviews provide a wholly independent assessment of whether the time has come for changes to be made. His PTA report is before the House, and he is now embarking on his separate, annual review of the Northern Ireland legislation, which the House will have the opportunity to debate in about three months. In addition, the House will need to consider next Session what to do before the emergency provisions Act reaches the end of its statutory life in August 1996.
The second question—what permanent counter-terrorism legislation, if any, might be needed if a lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland—is one on which the Government have an open mind. At the right moment, there would need to be a wide-ranging look at all the options. There are a number of ways in which that could be done, but we are persuaded that it would be premature at this stage to try to address these longer term issues. The priority for now is to make much further progress down the road of securing a lasting peace.
There is a better chance now than at any time in the past 21 years that an end may soon be in sight to this long series of annual debates. But the prospects remain uncertain. It is the Government's unshakeable conviction that we must not lower our guard until we can be satisfied that Northern Irish terrorism is really at an end.
If, as we earnestly hope, that day comes, it will be in no small measure due to the skill and fortitude which the police and security forces have shown down the years, fortified by the exceptional powers entrusted to them under this legislation. I pay tribute to them for their work, for which we are all enormously indebted to them. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 23 minutes past 4, according to the Chamber clock, it was the Home Secretary and not I who brought into the debate the subject of Lockerbie. Does he not owe it to his colleagues at least to explain what relevance the measures that we are discussing have to the Lockerbie bombing?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I was not in the Chair at the time. I am quite sure that, if Madam Speaker had thought that there was anything amiss, she would have drawn it to the attention of the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: Terrorism is a scourge of far too many societies across the world. It can be an especial cancer for countries that aspire to be democratic, because the measures that are sometimes necessary in a democracy to fight terrorism and reduce terrorist acts can collide with some of the most important features of those


democracies, such as the liberty of the subject before the law and the paramount need for an independent and transparent system of justice that applies equally to all.
Every hon. Member shares a complete abhorrence of terrorism and a desire to see it eradicated from all parts of the United Kingdom. It is the Opposition's fervent hope that there should be bipartisan agreement on the measures that are necessary to defeat terrorism. Unfortunately, such bipartisan agreement has proved no easier to achieve this year than last, but our endeavours to obtain such an agreement will continue beyond tonight's vote.
We all owe a particular debt to those in the police and armed forces and in the security and intelligence services for their dedication and for their daily risks. Many of them have paid with their lives in the fight against terrorism, from whatever source. In opening the debate for the Opposition this time last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is now the leader of the Opposition, said:
It is not in dispute, and never has been, that we need anti-terrorist legislation. It is not in dispute that the powers…of detention"—
of terrorist suspects—
should remain.
My right hon. Friend also supported the continuance of the proscription of terrorist organisations and the
"attachment of terrorist funds."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 300.]
Last week in a Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and this Monday on the Floor of the House, the Opposition approved without a Division an order made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in respect of international terrorism. Three things, however, are in dispute: the power to make exclusion orders, which are a form of internal exile; the absence of a judicial element in decisions to extend detention; and, above all and especially important at this time, the need for a general and comprehensive review of anti-terrorist legislation.
Had such a review been announced, and had it been able to take into account our concerns in relation to the first two matters that I raised, we should not have voted against the order tonight, but the renewal of the Act comes before the House in a single, take-it-or-leave-it order that the House cannot amend. In those circumstances, and as we have been unable to make progress on any of the matters that I have specified, a parliamentary committee of the Labour party had no alternative but to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the order.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I understand and share some of the hon. Gentleman's reservations, but would he give the same advice to his right hon. and hon. Friends if he believed that they would win the vote tonight?

Mr. Straw: If I believed that we would win the vote, we would be in government and the question would not arise. I have dealt with the point. This is a take-it-or-leave-it order. A Division is the only way in which the Labour party can put on record its serious reservations about the way in which the Government have responded to its proposals.
Although the Act to which the order directly relates was passed in 1989, legislation to counter terrorism was first introduced by the then Labour Government in

November 1974, four days after the Birmingham pub bombings. That measure passed through all its stages in the House and in the other place in the near record time of 48 hours. There was unanimity on the need for that legislation to deal with what the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins described as a "wholly exceptional situation" and a "clear and present danger", but, equally, there was wide understanding of the enormity of what the House was doing.
Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins, described the provisions as "draconian" and said that they were "unprecedented in peacetime". Parliament has rightly determined that the use of and justification for such powers must, in consequence, be kept under continual review. Powers were therefore laid down requiring what amounted to annual audits of the exclusion and detention orders made under the Act.
In recent years, those audits have been carried out by John Rowe. From time to time, wider, more fundamental reviews of the merits and future use of those powers have been undertaken by distinguished figures in public life such as Lords Gardiner and Shackleton in the 1970s and Viscount Colville in 1987. Each of those wider reviews re-emphasised the intention that those powers should be temporary. The Secretary of State referred to that earlier when he said that the measures were explicitly temporary.
In his 1975 report, Lord Gardiner said that the continued existence of these powers should be
limited both in scope and duration".
In 1978, Lord Shackleton said:
It would be highly regrettable if the view were to gain ground that these powers should in some way slide into part of our permanent legislation. I do not think that they should.
Today, the Home Secretary echoed the same point that he made this time last year, when he said that, since 1974,
it has been the hope of successive Home Secretaries that the day would come when the circumstances which made these exceptional powers necessary would cease to exist".
He went on to say:
for most of the past 20 years, that has been very much a hope rather than an expectation."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 292.]
Of course, he was right in his opening remarks today to refer to the continuing terrorist outrages that took place on the day of the debate this time last year right up until the IRA ceasefire in August; but, in the 12 months since that statement in 1994, something exceptional and remarkable has happened. Thanks to the extraordinary tenacity first of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and then of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and thanks to the commitment, to which we pay tribute again, of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the determination of all the communities in the Province, effectively there has been a peace, however temporary, since the IRA ceasefire in August. For the first time in 25 years, people in Northern Ireland are enjoying something of the normality of life that we in Britain have taken for granted.
I hope that no hon. Member is sufficiently naive to assert that the situation in the north of Ireland is so stable that lasting peace is now a certainty. Of course that is not the case, and of course it is a fact of life that the paramilitary organisations in both communities remain intact and have the same access to arms and explosives as they had before the ceasefires came into effect. Now is not the moment for complacency; but, to pick up the


phrase used by the Home Secretary last year, as the distant "hope" of peace has been replaced by a clear "expectation" of peace, in our judgment now is the time to establish a comprehensive and fundamental review of the future need for prevention of terrorism measures.
The review should be conducted on the basis, to use the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, of the
Government's working assumption that the ceasefires are intended to be permanent.
The review would be established to consider in the changed circumstances and on the Government's working assumption the need generally for there to be anti-terrorism measures on the statute book and the extent to which it was desirable or practical to include some of them in the general law on police powers and criminal procedures.
We would wish the review to consider, among other things, issues of concern relating to exclusion orders and decisions on the extension of detention. We proposed that the review should be conducted by a High Court judge or someone of similar standing and that the process of the review should be as open as possible, given the subject matter.
As I believe the House is aware, we pressed the case for such a review with Ministers well in advance of today's debate. We believe that in this area, more than almost any other, it is far preferable for matters to be treated on an all-party basis, and, as I said, had such a review been accepted, we would not divide the House tonight.
The Secretary of State's response to our proposals for a review has fallen into two parts, as I observed during a number of interviews that he and I have given. On the one hand, in an interview earlier this morning, the Secretary of State appeared to claim that the J. J. Rowe review into the operation of the Act in 1994 had already met our request but, on the other hand, he appeared to concede our case for a separate and much more fundamental review, as he did a moment ago, but with the caveat that it should not occur yet. Let me deal with those two points in turn.
There has, in fact, always been the clearest distinction between the kind of fundamental review that is now needed, and which was carried out in the past by Lord Shackleton, Viscount Colville and Lord Gardiner, and the annual reviews now carried out by Mr. Rowe. As Mr. Rowe concedes in the opening paragraph of his report, the review examines the operation of the Act in 1994. Although he considers whether there is a need for the Act to continue, he reaches his conclusion exclusively on the basis of how the Act has operated in the past, not on the circumstances in which it might operate in the future.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the House had to
take full account of the new situation"—[Official Report, 17 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 833–34.]
which the ceasefires have created; but Mr. Rowe said that, in making his judgment, he took account of the new situation. He said in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his report:
I cannot have regard to such things … I am not part of the peace process".

However, no fundamental review of the kind that we seek could conceivably do its work unless it did take account of the facts and the reality of the peace process.
The issue of human rights is central to the argument in a democracy about the use of anti-terrorist powers which involve a specific dilution of an individual's human rights. Mr. Rowe says that he "should have regard" to human rights which, he said, he kept "in mind", but he draws his readers' attention specifically to the absence of human rights considerations in his formal terms of reference. However, no fundamental review could possibly exclude such consideration from its terms of reference, because issues of human rights are at the heart of any fundamental review.

Mr. Dicks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rights and obligations are two sides of the same coin? If we take a certain Mr. Gerry Adams, how can we be concerned about his so-called "right" to come into this country when he has refused to accept his obligations to the rest of society? The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about rights without accepting that obligations go alongside them.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct to say that rights are balanced by duties. It is a fact of life with which the House and Ministers have had to wrestle since the IRA bombing campaign here in the early 1970s and just before that in Northern Ireland. The basic liberties that we take for granted have been assaulted by terrorist operations. I accepted and acknowledged that in opening my speech. Of course we take account of that. We also, however, have to recognise—this point was made extremely eloquently in Viscount Colville's fundamental review in 1987—that, if we stoop to the level of the terrorist and abandon altogether those fundamental liberties, we have lost the battle against terrorism.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: The hon. Gentleman may, inadvertently, have done an injustice to Mr. Rowe. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Rowe did not take into account the changed circumstances. I draw his attention to paragraph 15 on page 7, where Mr. Rowe makes that very point.

Mr. Straw: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman may draw my attention to paragraph 15 because I was coming on to deal with exactly that. I hope that I have done every justice to Mr. Rowe's report, because no purpose is served by seeking to alter the sense of what he said.
In one interview this morning, on breakfast television, the Secretary of State sought to elevate the Rowe review by saying that I had given evidence to it. The implication was that this turned the Rowe review into the fundamental review that the Labour party had sought. Would that that were the case! It is perfectly true, as Mr. Rowe records in the appendix to his report, that he separately saw my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and me.
However, those meetings were informal conversations. In no sense were they formal meetings to take detailed and forensic evidence about the future need for this legislation. Moreover, they took place when Mr. Rowe completed his report. I saw him on 31 January and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar saw him on 2 February. Mr. Rowe formally submitted his report to the Secretary of State on 3 February, the very next day.


To deal directly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), in paragraph 2 of the Rowe report, Mr. Rowe wholly detaches himself from the peace process. He says:
I am not part of the peace process: I not a member of the Government"—
quite right!—
I am not bound by any Government policy.
In paragraph 15, however, he makes an important concession to the reality of the peace process and to our argument. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, Mr. Rowe says that, although the whole of the prevention of terrorism Act is needed now,
I do not ignore the facts of the ceasefire or the talks, and if events occur so that one or more provisions of the PTA is no longer necessary, section 27(6)(b)"—
which allows provisions to be put into cold storage, as we have heard—
can be used … the Government should keep this section in mind during the coming year.
I said a moment ago that the response by the Secretary of State to our calls for a review was to claim at first that the Rowe review was sufficient. Twenty minutes later on the "Today" programme, and again in the House this afternoon, the Secretary of State said something very different, implicitly acknowledging that the Rowe review was not the same thing as a fundamental review. On the "Today" programme he said that, although he hoped that the ceasefire would be permanent, we would still need some anti-terrorist powers, an issue that is not in dispute across the Floor of the House. He said that we faced dangers from international terrorism; of course we do. He then said:
I accept that in that situation there will be a need to look very carefully and to have a review as to what powers we will continue to need for the long term.
That is exactly our case for a fundamental review. However, the Secretary of State finished by saying:
But we are not at that point yet.
There we have it. The Secretary of State accepts the need for a long-term review. He said earlier this afternoon that we needed a wide-ranging look at all the issues and that he did not consider Rowe to have provided that. The only issue is one of timing. The view of the Secretary of State is, yes, there should be an independent review, but not yet.
I simply do not understand his argument. There were two fundamental reviews in the 1970s and one in the 1980s, despite the fact that the overall security situation remained unchanged and dangerous. However, there has been no fundamental review since Lord Colville's. in 1987. Even if there were no ceasefire, a fundamental review would have been well overdue. Indeed, that point was made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this time last year. With the facts of the ceasefire, the case for the establishment of a fundamental review seems to us to be unanswerable and overwhelming.
As I have repeatedly made clear, Labour Members do not, of course, say that, pending the outcome of the review, the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as a whole should be put on ice; rather, we say that, on the working assumption of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the ceasefires will turn out to be permanent, the review's recommendations should be available to

Ministers and to Parliament to coincide with the time, which we all hope will come, when it is judged that peace in Northern Ireland is permanent.

Mr. Stephen Day: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a second.
The Secretary of State made some heavy weather of there being no question meanwhile of dismantling the security apparatus. There is no question on the Labour Benches either of dismantling the security apparatus.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the Secretary of State and then to his hon. Friend.

Mr. Howard: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's somewhat convoluted argument, but I am having considerable difficulty in doing so. The hon. Gentleman concedes that lasting peace is not a certainty. There is a difference between us as to when there should be the fundamental review to which he referred, but the House is concerned with whether these powers should be renewed now, in the existing situation. If the hon. Gentleman accepts the uncertainty and if, as he said a moment ago, the existing security apparatus with the powers that sustain it should not be dismantled, why cannot he agree with Mr. Rowe, who said that the whole Act is needed now? Why cannot he agree with the Government, and why cannot his party vote with us in the Lobby this evening?

Mr. Straw: By his attitude, the Secretary of State has just explained the reason. He knows that we sought a bipartisan agreement, not on the suspension of the powers but on the establishment of a fundamental review. We had no interest in playing party politics on this issue. I hope and believe that the Secretary of State does not either. It is interesting, however, that, for the first time in my recollection, he has used the term and acknowledged the need for a fundamental review.
I dealt with the issue of the vote in my opening remarks and in answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). This is a take-it-or-leave-it order. The only way in which we can express not only our opposition to exclusion orders as they currently operate and the fact that the Secretary of State, as I shall explain, is unwilling to suspend their future use, but our reservations about the decisions on the extension of detention and, above all, the Secretary of State's failure, which I continue to fail to understand, to establish a fundamental review which will be without prejudice to the operation of those powers, is by voting against the order.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and then come back to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Day: I find it difficult to accept that the hon. Gentleman mentions that in future we may recognise a permanent peace. Does he agree that the only real sign of a permanent peace is when terrorists hand over their weapons and that, until then, there cannot be real peace, only the hope of it? Given that scenario and the fact that we certainly cannot describe the present situation as permanent peace, why will not the hon. Gentleman ensure


that the powers to contain the threat of a return to terrorism are available to the Government of the day if they needed them?

Mr. Straw: I have just dealt with that. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was explaining, I think yesterday, the issue of how one judges a permanent peace is slightly more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying—I hope that I understand it correctly—that the only issue between him and the Government is the timing, and perhaps the nature, of the review. He also complains that the order is a take-it-or-leave-it order, but there is absolutely nothing in it about a review. So if the only difference between the hon. Gentleman and the Government is the review, why does he not vote for the order, which provides the powers that the police, the security service and Mr. Rowe say are needed if we are to keep up our guard?

Mr. Straw: That is about the poorest argument I have ever heard the Secretary of State come out with. I have answered it once already, but I am happy to answer it again. This is a take-it-or-leave-it order, and our concerns should come as no surprise to the Home Secretary because he has known of them for several weeks. If he is anxious to assist us not to vote against the order, he could bring forward what, from what he has let slip this afternoon, is evidently in his mind—the fundamental review, which I suspect he will announce in a shorter rather than a longer time.
I shall now deal with two specific issues that concern us—exclusion orders and extensions of detention. I welcome the Home Secretary's revoking of the 16 exclusion orders. One of the reasons why we believe that a fundamental review is necessary is that, the last time the case for them was examined in such a review, by Lord Colville in 1987, he found that case wholly wanting.
I have given the matter as much attention as I can, and I acknowledge the strong views of those directly involved in the fight against terrorism about the need to maintain exclusion orders. I think that the Home Secretary will accept, however, that those views can never be overriding. Politicians, such as Ministers and Members of the House, must make wider judgments.
Lord Colville looked most carefully at the balance to be struck between the practical case for exclusion orders made by people in the security forces, and such orders' collision with basic liberties. He said:
This power is the most draconian in the present Act. It is only applicable to Irish terrorism".
Lord Colville had previously explained:
I have to agree that it is probably an effective way of getting rid of people from an area where otherwise they might cause great trouble; that it disrupts terrorist lines of communication and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives. However I am not convinced that the ends justify these means. I renew my recommendation … that Part II of the Act relating to exclusion orders should not be renewed … or not replaced in the new Bill … I recognise that the alternative is a hard decision, but I express the view that it would be the correct one both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom and this country's reputation in that respect among the International Community".

That is absolutely right. We accepted that view in 1987, and we accept it now. What lies behind it is the fact that exclusion orders apply only to people from Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, that is one reason why the Ulster Unionists have always opposed them, too.
We note with great approval that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, ahead of the Home Secretary's announcement today, has already announced the lifting of all orders in Northern Ireland. Lord Colville criticised what he described as the burden and the heavy work load that exclusion orders imposed on the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces in Northern Ireland.
If the peace process continues positively, it is improbable that either the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will use the power in future. We therefore believe that, pending the outcome of the fundamental review that we seek, future use of exclusion orders—de novo use—should be suspended by means of section 27 provisions.
The Secretary of State said that that was all right, but that under section 27(7)(b) there would be a period of 24 hours before the use of exclusion orders could be invoked. In fact, the period is probably shorter than that, but the Secretary of State knows that, given the other powers of detention—we do not suggest that those should be put on ice at this stage—if the security situation changed radically, even if he had exercised his power to put the future use of exclusion orders on ice under section 27, in practice the power could be restored at a moment's notice, first by the use of the powers to detain a person against whom a potential exclusion order was to be made and then, when the order had been laid, as it could be, as a matter of urgency, by the use of the order itself.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has answered a question that I did not ask him. Will he now answer the question that I asked him in my speech? I said that, if the powers to make exclusion orders were removed, no action could be taken in respect of known terrorists who might want to cross into Great Britain in advance of a resumption of terrorism. If one waited until the point that the hon. Gentleman seems to think appropriate, it might be too late. That is why I said that we had to continue with the powers. Unless we did, we would not be able to keep in place any of the existing exclusion orders—those that I have retained after the review of that I undertook. They would all have to go. That is the question that I put to the hon. Gentleman earlier. May we have an answer to it?

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is making enormously heavy weather of what is really a simple issue. Either he intends to continue to make future use of exclusion orders, which seems to collide with the peace process, at least while there is a great possibility of a permanent peace, or he does not. If the power to make exclusion orders were put on ice, what would really happen?
The Home Secretary has gone to great lengths to quote Mr. John Rowe's report, and Mr. Rowe drew attention to the fact that the power could be used at some stage in the 12 months following his report—that would now mean during the next nine months. If the security situation


deteriorated, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to suggest it may, there is no reason why the power could not be re-established quickly.

Mr. Clive Soley: I do not think that the Home Secretary is aware of the history here. There was a time, especially in the early 1980s, when the argument against the extended use of the security services, including MI5, which was being considered as an alternative to exclusion orders, was always that the security services were stretched too far. That is one of the big changes since that time.
The security services are no longer overstretched, because of the collapse of the cold war and the changed security situation in Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary himself admitted that there were only 40 people whose movements interested him in connection with exclusion orders. The preference would be to use the security services as they ought to be used and as they are prepared to be used, rather than using internal exile.

Mr. Straw: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point, which is connected with the detail of Lord Colville's argument in his 1987 report.
I shall now deal briefly with extensions of detention. One of the features of democratic societies is that decisions to detain people are made judicially, by a process separate from the role of Ministers and politicians. On Monday, the House re-emphasised its commitment to the need for such a separation of powers, when it agreed without a vote to remove Ministers' discretion on miscarriages of justice and to transfer it to an independent criminal cases review commission.
However, under the legislation before us decisions to extend detention are made by Ministers. In our judgment, that is inherently unsatisfactory, as was recognised by the present Foreign Secretary who said in 1989, when he was Home Secretary:
We continue to look for a judicial mechanism".—[Official Report, 30 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 65.]
Last year, the Home Secretary said that that search had been in vain.
I accept that this is not an easy area, and I have read in detail the views of John Rowe and of Viscount Colville in last year's debate on the PTA renewal in the other place. However, there are other examples within our common law system in which a judge effectively makes a judicial decision even though not all the evidence, or even any of it, can be shown to the defendant. Ex parte applications to protect the disclosure of certain unused prosecution evidence provide one example. Another arises when the question is whether public interest immunity should apply to evidence. I do not believe that such a mechanism would be impossible to draw on if the will were there.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was right to say that one of the reasons why this country has got into difficulty with the international courts is not that we treat terrorist suspects worse than other countries do. Despite our reservations about some aspects of the legislation, there is ample evidence to suggest that we treat terrorist suspects better than other comparable countries do.
We get into difficulties because Ministers are involved in decisions on detention, whereas in other countries—those with civil law procedures—a magistrate or some other detached person in the judicial system makes those

decisions. That is one of the practical reasons why we should continue to search for a judicial element in extensions of detention and elsewhere within the scheme of the Bill.
For the past 25 years, the people of the north of Ireland have had to live with the ever-present dangers of political violence. Two Members of the House—Airey Neave and Ian Gow—have been murdered by terrorists.

Mr. David Trimble: What about Robert Bradford?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry.
All Northern Ireland politicians have lived through periods of mortal danger. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) still carries the scars to prove that. We can neither forgive nor forget the terrible and brutal atrocities which have scarred our society. But we also have an obligation to do all in our power to stop those atrocities from happening again.
In the changed circumstances of a sustained ceasefire, now is the time to review precisely what anti-terrorist legislation we need. That would not undermine the fight against terrorism but strengthen it by ensuring that the powers needed for that fight are proportionate to the threat and that they enjoy the consent and understanding of the public of the United Kingdom. Labour wants a bipartisan approach in this area. I greatly regret that the Government have not accepted our proposals to achieve the consensus that we seek. It is for that reason—and for that reason alone—that we will express our regret in the Lobby tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate continues, I must point out that many hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that hon. Members will exercise self-restraint regarding the length of their speeches, so that no one is disappointed in this very important debate.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened carefully to the precisely constructed arguments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but nothing he said detracts from my conclusion that it would be irresponsible and indefensible to do anything other than support the renewal of the provisions.
I think that the hon. Gentleman makes two mistakes. First, he gives inadequate attention to the comprehensive and convincing arguments put forward by Mr. John Rowe for renewal. I do not believe that I have read an independent annual report which so convincingly put forward the argument for renewal since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act came into being.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he does not like the powers of detention and the exclusion orders. I respect that, but he makes an entirely false deduction from that premise, and says that, because of that dislike, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends must go into the Opposition Lobby tonight. That is not the case. There is an alternative.
The Opposition could say that the overriding interest of the country is to maintain the fight against terrorism. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can put on record to this House, the media and the country their opposition to two significant aspects of the measures. They can


nevertheless say that, despite their opposition to those points, the importance of having the means to fight terrorism is so overriding that they will vote with the Government. I suspect that, if the Opposition did that, they might conceivably find that they were not 40 points ahead in the opinion polls, but 42 points. They may feel, however, that they do not need that additional luxury.
There are a number of reasons why we should renew the provisions. The first is entirely related to Northern Ireland, and Mr. Rowe rightly made much of that. He reported that there remains
a very real threat of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
He pointed out that
activity by terrorist groups has not stopped",
and referred to assaults, intimidation, robberies, extortion, racketeering, money-collecting, the possession of firearms and explosives and the Irish National Liberation Army's continued reluctance to renounce what it regards as an armed struggle. On Northern Ireland issues alone, there is sufficient justification for the renewal of the measures.
The second reason why the House would be mistaken to do anything other than support renewal relates to international terrorism. It is very often overlooked that, although the genesis of the measures lay with the Birmingham atrocity and a number of other acts thereafter, the United Kingdom remains a focal point for visitors from many nations who have brought to London in particular their own factional interests and who fight their own factional battles.
Last year, only one non-Irish foreign national was arrested under the PTA, but that was an exception. The average figure during the previous 10 years was 33, and the peak year was 1984, when 73 foreign nationals were arrested under the PTA. We must accept that international terrorism continues to be a real threat, and Mr. Rowe rightly drew attention to that. There is justification for the continuation of the Act on the grounds of international terrorism as well.
The third reason why it would irresponsible not to renew the measures is simply—as Mr. Rowe pointed out—that the powers are needed and working. On proscribing, Mr. Row wrote:
In all circumstances it is clear that this part of the Act is needed".
On exclusion orders, he wrote:
There is value in the exclusion order preventing terrorism … this part of the Act should be continued".
On terrorist funding, he wrote:
These powers of PTA are necessary".
On arrest and extension he wrote:
There is a continuing need for the power of arrest under section 14, and the power of extension of detention".
Mr. Rowe's conclusion—to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary drew attention in his remarks—is:
PTA should be renewed, with every Part as at present enacted.
The last reason why we should renew the powers is not insignificant. The police who were on the front line of the fight against terrorism have been found to be using the powers fairly, and they wish them to continue. The House would need a very good reason to deny them those powers, and I for one cannot see what those reasons are.

On the grounds that I have outlined, there is a compelling argument for doing nothing other than renewing the provisions.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am grateful to have caught your eye so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take note of what you said and I shall try to contain my remarks and be as brief as possible, as I know that other Members want to speak.
I have a vivid memory of being a young Member of Parliament 21 years ago in the Chamber and of being told of the awful atrocity that had occurred at Birmingham. The deaths of those innocent young people on the mainland of Britain was a tragedy, although I realise that similar events had occurred in Northern Ireland for a good deal longer. The response of the House 21 years ago to that event was fairly predictable. All of us were shocked, and the House represented the anger that was felt through the whole of the United Kingdom about that atrocity. Therefore, the Prevention of Terrorism Act was born.
I was present in the Chamber for not all, but part, of the 36 hours it took the House to pass that legislation, and it was placed on the statute book 21 years ago. We passed it because of the feelings which we had at the time about the appalling violence of the IRA. I well remember listening to what I would consider to be the finest speech I ever heard in this Chamber, from Brian Walden, the then Labour Member for Birmingham, Lady wood. It is a great
pity that we did not have the cameras in the Chamber on that occasion, so people could go back to look at that speech. All we have instead is the cold print of Hansard.
That was the time when the Act was born. I voted for it, and I continued to vote for its renewal for a number of years thereafter. But, as time went by, I, and my party, began to realise that the draconian powers—those are not my words, but words used by people who have reviewed this legislation—contained in the Act were becoming unsustainable. The erosion of people's civil liberties and human rights, which are clearly contained in the Act, can no longer be sustained.
The Act has undoubtedly produced a very corrosive atmosphere in certain parts of the country and in certain communities. It has been counter-productive to its original intent because it has not prevented terrorism in any shape or form. Because of its draconian powers, it has damaged Britain's standing with the rest of the world. We introduced the measure 21 years ago and the Home Secretary is asking the House to renew it for a further year. Is it not a bitter irony that this Act has come of age during the time of peace in Northern Ireland?
The Government have always said that there is no such person as a political prisoner in the United Kingdom and I agree but, with hindsight, the provisions of the Act have run contrary to that belief. The Act has enhanced the status of prisoners because, as the Home Secretary said, the Government have had to apply for a derogation from the European court, which basically means that we are in a state of war. If that does not enhance their status, I do not know what does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that there appears to be some difference between the way in which the Home Secretary has operated the


provisions of the PTA and the way in which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has operated the emergency provisions Act.
The justification for continuation of the PTA is the possibility that paramilitaries may go back to the gun if peace breaks down in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) gave the figures earlier. In 1994, only one person was detained under the category of international terrorism, but 1,509 other people were detained under the provisions—I think that that is the right figure—in Northern Ireland and the mainland of the United Kingdom, and nearly 80 per cent. were released without charge. It is difficult to interpret those figures to mean anything other than that the PTA is seen as an anti-Irish Act, and it is seen as such by the vast majority of law-abiding Irish citizens in the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary has spelt out the justification for the Act and its renewal. The problem with the PTA, from the perspective of the principle of equality under the law, is that, whatever the Home Secretary or any of his successors or predecessors might say, the prisoners have been treated under a legal system that has not applied to ordinary criminals. They have been given a special category and denied the normal rights given to ordinary people in custody and on charge. The state has been seeking the benefit of the odious label, without accepting the need to extend to those suspects the procedural safeguards that are routinely available to non-paramilitary defendants.
The PTA has created special criminal offences for subversives and it gives the Executive wide powers of arrest, detention and exclusion of terrorist suspects, while claiming that they are just ordinary criminals. That is the paradox of the Government's thinking.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, it is a pity that there can be no cross-party consensus on the matter. We believe that anti-terrorist legislation is required, and it is a pity that the Home Secretary did not take up the offer of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, because consensus is necessary.
In the past, because of the attitude that the Opposition take, it has been said that Labour is soft on terrorism. I resent that remark. Everyone who has had responsibility for Northern Ireland, as I did for six years on the Opposition Front Bench, has condemned the IRA and other paramilitaries for the atrocities that they have committed—as has every other hon. Member in this House, especially those representing Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and I—with some risk to my life—have never ceased in our condemnation of the IRA, so I will not take lessons from anyone who suggests that we are soft on terrorism simply because we disagree with the way in which the PTA has been used.
We are debating the renewal of the legislation at a time of peace in Northern Ireland. I was in Belfast and Derry during Christmas week and there was a palpable sense of relief among the ordinary people. Christmas week—a joyous week, when we all celebrate the birth of Jesus—and the people of Northern Ireland were enjoying the freedoms that everyone in this Chamber has come to accept as commonplace, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said. I hope and pray that the peace will

continue and that the renewal of the Act will not destabilise the peace process, but I certainly do not think that it will necessarily help it.
Mention was made of exclusion orders and the Home Secretary will be aware that last year I raised the case of John Matthews, a young man from Derry who had been taken in under the PTA. He was in a high security gaol for three months and was brought before a stipendiary magistrate. The prosecuting authorities told the magistrate that they were withdrawing all the evidence against him and the magistrate said, "You may leave this court without a stain on your character," which he did. Five minutes later, he was re-arrested and the Secretary of State signed an exclusion order. Even to this day, Mr. Matthews does not know the reason.
If the boy were guilty of any offence, he should have been tried and brought to justice in the proper way. He should not have been excluded in that way. John Matthews is in Altnagelvin hospital having his wisdom teeth removed. I hope that some of that wisdom will flow around the Secretary of State for the Home Department in future when he considers exclusion orders.
Finally, I saw an interesting piece of news on the tapes yesterday, which read:
The IRA ceasefire has allowed police in London to boost operations against other criminals, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said today. Hundreds of officers who would otherwise be deployed countering the threat of random terrorism attacks were now working in other areas, said Sir Paul Condon … He was commenting at the launch of the Metropolitan Police Service's first police plan, which, in a reflection of the IRA ceasefire, does not list counter terrorism amongst its top priorities.
Those were the words of the chief of the biggest police force in London, and here we are, once again debating whether we should renew the order.
I cannot vote for this order this evening, for the reasons that I have explained. I hope that, next year, we shall not have to go through this process again. I hope that there will be stability and the peace process will solidify. I hope that the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland will get round the table and discuss the issues of the governance of Northern Ireland in a peaceful, progressive way.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I commend to the House the excellent and probing report on the operation of the PTA drawn up by John Rowe.
How do the majority of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland view the so-called "ceasefire and peace process"? They see that it is to the advantage of the terrorists, especially the IRA, as the IRA can dictate when that peace will be broken. In the interim, the Government are dancing to a tune of concessions in order to keep the Provisional IRA sweet. Mr. Rowe refuses to be won over by IRA blarney or promises that the violence is over permanently. The truth is that the IRA has no intention whatever of decommissioning or surrendering arms. It remains today one of the advanced terrorist organisations in the western world, with the greatest possible killing potential.
I am amazed at Members of this House who visit Northern Ireland and say that all is well. All is not well. If they visited people in the constituencies of hon. Members represented here, they would see that they are targeted by the IRA and the police have warned them that they are in danger. They should go to the homes of people who have


been told that, for safety's sake, they must leave the home in which they have lived all their lives. Is that what the House believes peace is?
One has only to look at what has taken place during the period when hon. Members have eulogised the wonderful spirit of peace. Mr. Rowe said that the
risk of terrorism continuing is a real one.
That is a factual statement, because terrorism is continuing. The report does not try to mask the reality that the IRA could, at any moment, resume its military terrorism. It has not stopped its vicious and atrocious assaults, nor stopped funding its organisation.
From the Provo ceasefire to the close of last year, there were 70 incidents. Perhaps the House agrees with Mr. Maudling's view that there is an acceptable level of violence. In January, nine vicious assaults took place. I do not know how one draws the distinction between knee-capping a person and giving that person a bit of towel to bite on as nails are driven through a stick into the calves of his legs. I do not know what hon. Members would prefer to have done to them. That is supposed to be peace.
The rate at which the IRA is stealing cars throughout Belfast, taking them to west Belfast, removing their engines' ancillaries and selling them is colossal. It is beyond even the police to reckon how many incidents of that type are happening all over the city. At midnight on 17 January, two soldiers sustained serious head injuries on the Antrim road. On 29 January, two petrol bombs were thrown in Strabane. A man was injured by a shooting incident in Monagh Pass. The Army defused an incendiary device in a shop on the Newtownards road. The Army disposed of a bomb at Woolworth and another bomb in Habitat in Belfast. The Army disposed of a further bomb in North street. A number of Orange halls have been attacked at Maree, Bawn and Pomeroy. In January, five armed robberies in Northern Ireland were all carried out by terrorists. Yet we are told that there is peace.
I remind the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who talked about the wonderful spirit at Christmas, that we have had IRA ceasefires at Christmas for a very long time. They are nothing new. We need to come down to what is really happening in Northern Ireland and how people there feel. There can be a permanent peace only if the terrorists' arms—their capability to kill, maim, bomb and destroy—are taken from them.
Whereas at first Ministers used the word "surrender", they now use the word "decommission". Today, we heard on our radios and televisions the voice of Mr. McGuinness from Londonderry saying that there can be no question of the IRA giving up any of its arms until the British Army and the RUC give up their arms, and every licensed gun in Northern Ireland is handed in. He said that only then will it be time to talk about the IRA surrendering its arms. Is that the basis on which this so-called "peace" is to be made?

Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in Northern Ireland have expressed great anger at the Secretary of State's statement in the United States of America that a "token" gesture will be required of the IRA before Her Majesty's Ministers will enter into talks with murderers like Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein?

Rev. Ian Paisley: From what we saw on our television screens of the Secretary of State, I was amazed that he went to America to make that announcement. Why did he not tell it to us in Northern Ireland, given that we are most concerned about it?

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the word "token" never crossed my lips, either in the United States of America or anywhere else?

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not a matter of semantics. What did cross the Secretary of State's lips was the fact that there could be a gesture with a small amount of arms handed over and that faith could be put in the word of the terrorists that they would cease their activities. The Secretary of State will no doubt hear for himself the reaction of people in Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend know that the Government of the Irish Republic and Her Majesty's Government know that there are currently three dumps in the Irish Republic? They know exactly where the arms are. Those weapons have been lost to the terrorists and will be used as that gesture because the IRA can never use those weapons again.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have heard it said by those who are acquainted with how the IRA works that the authorities in the south of Ireland are well aware of weapons hidden there.

Mr. Dicks: I understand—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that there will be no move to have Adams and McGuinness sitting round the negotiating table until every last weapon that they own has been handed in. Is that wrong?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I point out that we are dealing not with the general state of the peace negotiations but with the renewal or otherwise of the provisions against terrorism? I hope that he will address that point.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but all the other speakers today discussed relevant matters, and I thought that I would also have the leniency of the Chair. I am glad that I got as far as I did, and I thank you for your leniency.

Mr. Dicks: The Government would not talk to IRA/Sinn Fein until all their weapons had been surrendered.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree that that is what I, and everyone, understood, but now we can see them weakening and weakening until we do not know when Ministers will sit at the table. That is the feeling.
There is a noticeable variance between what the Home Secretary says and what the Northern Ireland Office says. The Home Secretary hides behind Mr. Rowe's report, rightly. I agree with the report; I commend it. However, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a statement on 17 February 1995, and he said:
As Mr. Rowe himself makes clear, most of his work was completed before the PIRA cessation of violence and it was wholly completed before the loyalist cessation. His recommendations do not, therefore, take full account of the new situation which these events created, nor of the Government's working assumption that the ceasefires are intended to be permanent.


However, when we read the report, we discover that the villain—Mr. Rowe himself—makes an entirely different affirmation. He says:
It is said, at least as to Northern Ireland, that since the ceasefires terrorism has stopped, and talks have started and the Government has a working assumption that the ceasefire is intended to be permanent. The submission was made to me that the PTA should not now be used in any circumstance, and that no use should have been made of it from 31 August 1994 onwards. I have considered these points carefully, but my conclusion remains the same, and I am convinced of it.
I do not understand, therefore, why the Home Secretary comes to the House and praises Mr. Rowe and then that statement emanates from the Northern Ireland Office, saying that Mr. Rowe was not fully acquainted with the situation. He has studied the situation, and I believe that he has made a right assessment of what has taken place.
Mr. Rowe says about exclusion orders:
I … have seen a clear indication that exclusion orders can deter excluded persons from engaging in terrorist acts in Great Britain … there is proof that exclusion orders have disrupted the terrorists' plans.
Anything that can disrupt the terrorists' plans, anything that can keep a mass bomb from reaching its destination, should be welcomed by every fair-thinking person in the House.
On Victory in Europe day, Winston Churchill made one of his very few impromptu speeches in the House. He said:
the strength of the Parliamentary institution has been shown to enable it at the same moment to preserve all the title deeds of democracy while waging war in the most stern and protracted form."—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1869.]
That is what we need to do. We need to wage war on those terrorists from whatever side they come, and we also have to keep to the rules of democracy. If a person sets out to take away the life of another person, I believe that the law needs to step in and stop that person committing that crime.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said in the House:
I believe that we have a prime duty to defend the liberties of our constituents, but a Bill of Rights and a whole volume of liberties are of little value to someone who is 6 feet beneath the ground or someone whose body has been dismembered by a bomb."—[ Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699.]
Of course at that time he was not so contaminated with IRA/Sinn Fein; he was speaking from his heart about what was happening in this part of the United Kingdom. I would say to the House today—

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have given way a great deal. I am beyond my time. I shall be castigated by Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall not give way.

Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right that an accusation of that type should be made against the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—that he has been contaminated by the IRA—and should not that remark be withdrawn, in the interests of the type of justice that you are talking about?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think it was just about within the bounds of the way that we deal with things here, but I would caution all Members, especially in these delicate circumstances, to remember that we maintain the very highest standard of conduct and manners, especially when referring to other Members of the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If people want to call for the IRA, with its arms still intact, to be brought to the discussion table and

treated as a body with constitutional politicians, I for one will call that person a person contaminated by Sinn Fein/IRA, without apology. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has said very nice things about me, with which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would quite agree. I am stating the facts, and I have read from Hansard, and if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North wants to go back on his own word, that is for him to do.
All I am saying to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I conclude my speech, which has been greatly interrupted—I should really be pleading for accident time—is that the House has a solemn responsibility to safeguard the people of Northern Ireland in the same way that it safeguards the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary said that he was a Unionist. As a Unionist, he should be as dedicated to keeping the people of Northern Ireland in safety as he is to keeping in safety any person in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not need to reiterate the list of misery, death and mayhem that originally precipitated the legislation and has kept it on the statute book for so long. That has been done by other hon. Members.
I do not want to dwell at length on the peace process and the current cessation of violence, except to say two things. First, violence has not ceased altogether in Northern Ireland, and several unpleasant incidents have taken place in that period, and therefore some of the Northern Ireland legislation may continue to be necessary for that reason.
Secondly, confidence needs to be maintained and built on, and that must include a decommissioning process whereby arms and explosives come out of the hands of terrorists so that it becomes clear to people that they are not about to resort to terrorism again, or to use the possibility of doing so as a negotiating ploy.
The problem with that is that we shall never know whether we have obtained all the Semtex and whether all the guns have been removed from either side. The world that one hon. Member described, in which not only every gun held by terrorist organisations, but every Army weapon, every RUC weapon and every licensed gun in Northern Ireland had disappeared, is not the real world.
Judgments will need to be made at some time whether the process that is taking place is one in which a return to violence becomes genuinely unlikely or even very difficult for terrorists to undertake. Whoever has ministerial responsibility at that time will have to make that judgment, and he will not be able to do so by simply saying, "It is fine now, everyone. I have got all the weapons; I know that we are all right." That will not happen. I do not envy anyone the job of making the judgment, but that process must begin.
The other side of the coin to building confidence through decommissioning is that the political process must keep going, and all those involved have to be clearly engaged in that process to provide the basis on which confidence can be built on that side.
It would be irresponsible to scrap the anti-terrorist legislation entirely with immediate effect. We shall therefore vote to renew it tonight, although we shall


continue to demand a general review of the working of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. That review should take account of the security position as it develops in the next few months so that parts of the Act that are not effective for security purposes can be scrapped. Anti-terrorist powers are major limitations on civil liberty, which can be justified only if they are essential for security. They should not be treated as bargaining counters in the peace process. Nor should they be determined by negotiations between the Conservative and Labour parties in the hope of enabling Labour to get off the hook in voting against renewal. I do not believe that Labour Front Benchers would recommend that their hon. Friends vote against renewal in the Lobby tonight if they thought that they could win that vote. The Labour party is making a point and, in part, I agree with it.
However, I am not prepared to make that point in that way because I believe that we must keep the powers on the statute book since they may be required for security purposes. We should continue to argue about the speed with which a review can be undertaken and changes made.
I turn to the key elements in the prevention of terrorism legislation. The very fact that the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary have revoked a significant number of exclusion orders is a sign that those powers are no longer as valuable as they may have been in other circumstances. The powers should be relaxed on those grounds alone; they should not be relaxed as some kind of boost to the peace process or as an offering to the negotiations.
It must be demonstrated that the exclusion orders are not appropriate for use in current circumstances. Such major incursions into civil liberty and such defiance of the Unionist principle of one United Kingdom are very difficult for the Government to defend unless there is an overriding security reason for doing so. We have so few exclusion orders now that we must be close to seeing their complete removal. We would have to make sure that we could cope with the security consequences of that move and ensure that the people from whom the exclusion orders had been lifted did not pose a threat to this country. There are ways of achieving that goal.
I submit that the powers of detention without charge will need to be either cut back, as has occurred in respect of international terrorism, or put under judicial control. There have been several references to the debate about judicial consideration of detention. Curiously, most of the countries with which we are compared in discussions about human rights have judicial processes for extended detention—a fact of which Mr. Nick Leeson is already aware. Other people who find themselves in trouble and in courts overseas become aware of them pretty quickly also.
We have a rather different tradition and, in some ways, it is a stricter one. In this instance, it has led to the Executive taking responsibility for detaining people without charge for longer than would normally be permitted. Mr. Rowe believes that judges might be seen to be acting as part of the Executive if they were brought into that process. If we must maintain powers for longer detention for any period of time, we may have to try to overcome Mr. Rowe's objections and work out how the judiciary can participate in the process without merely being a servant of the Executive. On the present evidence,

I do not think that we will be dealing with the number of cases that initially made that outcome seem very difficult, or impossible, to achieve.
I think that the powers relating to the proscription of organisations are of diminishing security value. Their main importance may now lie in the way in which proscription expresses the revulsion of people in this country at the activities in which terrorist organisations—both republican and loyalist paramilitary organisations—have engaged. People find it very hard to accept the fact that legally permitted organisations carry out acts of terrorist violence within our jurisdiction. However, I think that those powers are of limited usefulness as a security measure.
The powers for the confiscation of funds, the investigation of funds and the transfer of money and money laundering are potentially of continuing importance—especially if there is a possibility of a return to violence. They are also of great significance in relation to terrorism that is not related to Northern Ireland. As has been mentioned already, the House dealt with an order relating to terrorism from the Indian sub-continent only a few days ago. Those powers and the powers of investigation associated with them under section 17 and schedule 7 may be needed in the future.
I think that the border controls and stop-and-search activities at points of entry are likely to prove of continuing importance. If exclusion orders are dropped, it may still be necessary to keep a fairly careful watch on who is crossing from Northern Ireland to Britain or who is travelling in the opposite direction. Those powers may serve a continuing purpose.
Most members of the public, when subjected to the inconvenience created by the powers, recognise that they are important—perhaps more readily than they would in other contexts. When there is broader debate about passport and border controls, I often wonder whether hon. Members know how irritated some of my constituents get about delays with border controls and passports. However, in the context of Northern Ireland terrorism, I think that people are appreciative of the reasons for the powers and co-operate readily when showing their passports or in allowing their luggage or their vehicles to be searched.
The Government will have to review the separate Northern Ireland emergency provisions. If Ministers have to come back to the House for another renewal of the present prevention of terrorism legislation without undertaking a full review, it will be a sign either that the peace process has failed—leaving a heightened security threat—or that they are not keeping up to date with current security requirements.
I do not believe that the mix of security requirements which makes up the legislation in its present form is likely to be what we will need a year from now. Other forms of terrorism may be become more important than Northern Ireland terrorism, so a different mix of powers will be required and we will rely rather less on this emergency legislation than on the general body of law.
I believe that a review is essential, and the Secretary of State recognised that in his remarks today. He believes that a fundamental review of the powers is appropriate, but he does not want to embark upon it as quickly as I would wish. We shall pursue that area of difference with him and we will continue to emphasise our view that some of the features of the legislation must not he regarded


as permanent fixtures of our statute book because they represent major incursions into civil liberty. However, we believe that we must ensure that the powers are intact while the review process takes place.

Mr. David Wilshire: I wish that I did not have to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the Lobby tonight, but I must support him for the following reason: the Irish Republican Army is still in being. It still
maintains its arsenal; is still recruiting; still targeting; still training; still researching improvised weapons".
They are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There is an additional reason which he did not list when making his speech in the United States: the IRA is still fund-raising.
Extortion and blackmail, and intimidation and the collecting of funds, all for terrorist purposes, still goes on".
They are not my words, but the words of Mr. Rowe in his report.
In researching for my speech in this debate, I used two very helpful briefing documents: first, a case for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 from the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, Mr. Rowe's report. I studied both documents very carefully. The CAJ report makes some very interesting points. I share its wish that the Act could be scrapped. I accept that its provisions result in a departure from the ideal standards of civil rights and natural justice. But bombers and murderers deny their victims the most fundamental of human rights: the right to life.
As much as I respect the case advanced by the CAJ, I reject it because it is founded on a false premise. It claims that Northern Ireland's emergency is over; but it is not. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) explained, the emergency is certainly not over. All that has changed since we debated the Act last year is that there is a temporary ceasefire which has been called by some—but not all—of the organisations concerned. Would-be negotiators are still supported by evil psychopaths with guns in their pockets and Semtex in their briefcases.
The other document that I considered was Mr. Rowe's report. His research is meticulous and his objectivity is impressive. The report has persuaded me that all of the provisions in the Act must continue for at least one more year. His general conclusions are deeply disturbing. In paragraph 9 of the report, he states:
Since the ceasefires there have been assaults and intimidation, which are terrorist related; likewise robberies of shops and of the person; and they continue to take place. There is extortion still going on, and racketeering, by terrorists: and there are still collections of money being made for terrorist funds".
That leads him to a very clear and simple conclusion: 
In short there is activity and threat.
I find that disturbing, but 1 find his detailed conclusions on each of the provisions equally disturbing.
He turns first to proscribed organisations and states in paragraph 18:
The organisations which are proscribed are still in existence. It is known that they maintain their structures in place, and INLA has not announced a ceasefire. The IRA has done so; but after a robbery in Northern Ireland in the Autumn, and after the ceasefire, when a

considerable sum of money was stolen, the IRA acknowledged that it was responsible: a public appeal was made for the return of the money taken, but nothing came of that".
He turns to exclusion orders and states in paragraph 22:
there is proof that exclusion orders have disrupted the terrorists' plans.
That leads him to support the continuation of the power to make exclusion orders.
Regarding his comments on the funding of terrorism, there is no need to labour the point again, as it has been covered in the debate.
When he turns to arrest and detention, he states in paragraph 42:
At the present time there is still terrorist related activity, and a threat … and therefore there is a continuing need for the power of arrest … and the power of extension of detention.
Finally, turning to his comments on port controls, he states in paragraph 68:
It seems to me that … these powers of examination are vital, and my conclusion is that they should be continued.
In other words, an expert who was asked to examine the working of the Act during 1994, having done his research, concludes that every part of the Act is still necessary.
There is another reason why I support its continuation. It is a reason that I deeply regret having to raise in the debate, but I am afraid that I take yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a weakening of his stance on the surrender of weapons and explosives. If I understand him correctly, it seems to me that terrorists will be allowed to keep their arsenals for some time to come. All they have to do is make a small gesture of good faith. Can we expect good faith from bombers or good faith from assassins? When in the history of the IRA has it ever shown good faith to anybody?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I never said, and of course it is not the case, that terrorists are allowed to keep their weapons for some time to come. I have said, and the Prime Minister has said, that there is no case for anybody retaining arms which are illegally held. That is abundantly clear and there is no change whatsoever in the Government's position. I said that, before we could sit down with Sinn Fein in the substantive, inclusive political talks, there had to be substantial progress made on the decommissioning of arms. That was said not only by the Prime Minister but by Mr. Bruton. I also said:
In a democracy, parties will not sit down, must not sit down, with another party that implies that if it doesn't get its way, it is prepared to condone a return to violence.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for saying that and I am sorry to continue to labour the point, but a press statement from the Northern Ireland Office, which I assume he authorised, stated:
In order to test the practical arrangements and to demonstrate good faith, the actual decommissioning of some arms as a tangible confidence building measure and to signal the start of a process.
If I understand that correctly—I am willing to give way to be told that I do not—I take it to be a weakening and I believe that to be wrong. I am sorry, but I cannot support my right hon. and learned Friend in that.
It gives me no pleasure to speak in these terms and I sincerely hope that nobody in the House will have to talk in the same way in a year's time. We have come a very long way since last August and I pay unreserved tribute


to all those who have been involved in the process, but the ceasefire has not yet become permanent. Terrorists have not yet called an end to their evil activities. The Act therefore remains necessary.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary asks for my support. I assure him that he has it for as long as he needs it.

Mr. David Trimble: We in Northern Ireland have enjoyed six months without serious terrorist incident. That is something for which the entire community is profoundly grateful. There has been a continuation of some terrorist activity, but none the less, the existence of the ceasefire is very welcome. Despite that, our judgment, together with that of other parties that have spoken this evening, is that tonight the House must renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
We are not out of the woods yet. We still have terrorist organisations which are armed to the teeth and regularly threaten a return to violence if they do not get their way. Scarcely a week goes by without Mitchell McLaughlin issuing a fresh threat of a return to violence.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) quoted from the speech by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Washington recently. The part that struck me as significant was the reference to the IRA "still researching improvised weapons". The fact that they are still researching and trying to develop new weapons is clear evidence of the danger that exists.
It is not just our judgment in the House. The Irish Government have formed the same judgment, but although they have repealed the so-called state of emergency dating back to 1939, they have retained the "offences against the state" legislation that provides for special criminal courts and internment. They have retained their legislation, and we must do the same.
I shall not rehearse our arguments on previous occasions, but I shall briefly touch on parts of them. I shall not repeat our position on exclusion orders. We find them objectionable in principle. They are not new. They were not invented in 1974; they were also contained in the 1939 Act, on which the 1974 Act was based. Then and now, they were the recourse of lazy authorities that lit on that provision because it seemed an easy way of introducing control.
As to seven-day detentions, I still remain of the view that it is possible to introduce a sufficient judicial element. There is a problem here that can be solved. I am aware of Mr. J. J. Rowe's comments about judges, but that is not the issue. We are addressing how to introduce a judicial element, not the present High Court judges. That is not the appropriate point. Mr. Rowe's approach is that of one who sees only difficulties rather than trying to find a solution, and I am sure a solution can be found.
While the Act has to be renewed for a further year, it must be the hope of hon. Members that this will be the last renewal, and that, despite the worries and concerns of so many hon. Members about whether the present temporary ceasefire will become permanent, it is important that we do not lose the protection that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland

(Emergency Provisions) Act provide with regard to terrorist acts. It is not wise to leave the United Kingdom without some permanent protection.
There will always be the danger of a renewal of republican violence, and there are also threats from what we have this evening called international terrorism. I shall mention just a few examples.
Groups involved in the civil war in Algeria are said to be using London. There was a murder last week in London which has been linked to an extreme Islamic group, which I understand is banned in some other countries. We may want to consider banning it here. The Pakistani Christians whose death sentences were quashed in Pakistan and who had to leave Pakistan because they would no longer be safe there, could not come to the United Kingdom because they would not be safe here. They had to go to Germany. That is a reflection on our country.
Therefore, while the Act has to be renewed for this year, in the coming year we should undertake a major review of the legislation for the purpose of considering what permanent provision should be made. It remains to be seen whether it will be possible to move to that permanent position in the course of the year, but it is now appropriate for the Government to move in that direction.
I imagine that, if consideration was being given to what permanent provision is needed to deal with terrorism, we would want to retain the port and entry control powers. The powers relating to arrest, search and special offences in the current legislation might be put in cold storage, but available if needed—with, of course, appropriate parliamentary safeguards. Such a review could not be confined to the PTA; it would have to involve the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: indicated assent.

Mr. Trimble: I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is nodding.
I believe that the form of the review should follow the precedent set by the 1979 Gardiner committee. I do not think it appropriate to involve a High Court judge. We have already expressed that view to the Home Secretary, and I gather from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that the Labour party tried to persuade him to follow the same line.
I understand the Home Secretary's caution, and I understand that there are still matters for him to consider; but I hope that he will not delay his action for too long, for action must be taken. He has acknowledged the need for permanent provision, and he has also acknowledged that a review is the best way in which to consider what that provision should be.
As for the stance of the official Opposition, I find it amazing—although we agree with the Labour party on some specific points. The hon. Member for Blackburn said, after referring to the need for a review, that, had such a review been announced, there would have been no vote against the order.
The Home Secretary and others acknowledge that such a review is necessary and will be carried out. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the only problem was the issue of timing. Is that so important that he must divide the House, and send the wrong signal to terrorists?


I pay tribute to the way in which, over the past couple of years, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to change Labour's position. He has succeeded to some extent, but I am sorry that neither he nor his spokesman have had the courage to travel the rest of the way. We know the reason: the Opposition Back Benches contain a number of—well, "scoundrels" might be the appropriate word, but I am not sure whether it is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, it is not.

Mr. Trimble: I happily bow to your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and withdraw the term. A number of Labour Back Benchers, however, would defy their leader because of motives of which I do not approve. I shall go no further.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: We are against the Act.

Mr. Trimble: Yes.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, the peace process depends on the surrender or decommissioning of weapons. Through my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), we have made what we consider to be a positive proposal, but time precludes me from giving the details.
I join the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) in deploring the confusion that seems to have crept into the Government's position. In his statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seemed to be saying that, if some arms were surrendered, Sinn Fein and the rest of the IRA could take their place at the table and talk. Apparently, however—according to what I have been told—the Minister of State said on this morning's edition of "Today" that two stages were involved: "Surrender some weapons and you get into direct talks with Ministers; to get into the all-party talks, you must surrender a substantial number of weapons."
I must caution those outside the House that involvement in all-party talks will require more than a decision by Her Majesty's Government. It will require a decision by other parties—and we ourselves will have to be satisfied that those taking part in all-party talks are committed to exclusively peaceful methods. The onus will be on those other parties to satisfy us of that.
Following the differing statements of two Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, I have been informed that, in a briefing today, the Government have told the press that they are about to move into bilaterial ministerial talks with the IRA. I hope to hear more about that when the Minister winds up.
I would have liked to explore the matter further, but time prevents me from doing so. I understand that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is anxious to speak.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Let me reassure my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that I shall support him in the lobby. I feel, however, that, after the confusion caused by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the whole issue could be cleared up for good if he could reassure us—reassure me, in particular—that he will not sit down with any member of Sinn Fein or the rest of the IRA until the IRA has surrendered its weapons.

If he cannot give me such a categorical assurance now, I will assume that there has been some slippage in the Government's stance, or that I have completely misunderstood that stance. I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to clarify the position.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I readily take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend. There has been no slippage. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said time and again—and it does not rest only with us; the Government as a whole take the same stance—that, before inclusive political talks about future structures in Northern Ireland can take place, substantial progress must be made on the decommissioning of arms.
My hon. Friend may not like that; he may wish that I had put it in another, less realistic way. But that is the way in which the Government, the Prime Minister and—for what it is worth, and it is worth quite a lot—Mr. Bruton have put it. That is what must be achieved in the current exploratory phase of the discussions.
There has been no slippage whatever. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, and will not go by highly inaccurate accounts in one or two newspapers today.

Mr. Dicks: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. If he were not a lawyer, I would suspect him of being a civil servant. Is he now saying that it is even more essential for the powers that we are discussing to be renewed?
As for exclusion orders, surely the idea is to stop IRA terrorists from coming to this country in the guise of those wanting to take part in discussions, and sending their troops here to be ready if and when things go wrong—ready to take on the British people in all sorts of ways. I suspect that, without exclusion orders—indeed, even with them—we cannot be sure that they have not already taken up their places.
The Opposition have talked of a fundamental review. If introduced now, such a review would only encourage the terrorists in the IRA to believe that what they have achieved so far can be achieved to an even greater extent. They could say, "Look—we have even persuaded the Government to undertake a fundamental review, before putting aside a single gun or anti-tank mortar." I consider it essential to hold back on any such review until we see the colour of their money—until we see how many weapons have been handed over.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) raised the question of wrongful detention. If we are to talk of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, I should point out that, to my knowledge, no one has been found guilty of either of those crimes, in which people lost their lives. Oddly enough, neither police force is now seeking any of the terrorists who committed those atrocities.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dicks: No; the hon. Gentleman is too close to the IRA.
I find it rather suspicious that both police forces have given up looking for the people who committed those dreadful atrocities. The comparison with a person who has been kept in prison for a few weeks is very poor.
Earlier, I raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the question of Gerry Adams and allegations about recourse to the European Court of Justice or the European


Court of Human Rights. I am amazed that Mr. Adams—helped by Liberty, which always seems to want to help murderers and terrorists rather than victims—should have the audacity to take the case to one of those courts to try to obtain compensation for the fact that our exclusion orders prevented Mr. Adams from coming to this country.
As I told my right hon. and learned Friend earlier, rights and obligations are two sides of the same coin. How can Mr. Adams or Mr. McGuinness expect people in this country to recognise their rights when they do not recognise their obligations to the rest of us and act in a decent, humane and democratic fashion?
There would be a public outcry in this country if any indication were given that we would follow the line indicated by the European Court. I am amazed that we should even consider such a possibility, and I was grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's assurance that the Government would pay no compensation and would not recognise the decision of the European Court, if such a decision were made.
I voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, because I did not want a foreign country to have a say in the affairs of my country. Northern Ireland is still my country; I am a Conservative and unionist Member of Parliament. It seems odd that people cannot stand up and say clearly, "We will stand by our own people in Northern Ireland. We will ensure that they are listened to and that their views will be accepted by the House." I am concerned that any softening of the power will be a weakening of the Government's stance, perhaps giving the wrong message. All of us—some hon. Members anyway—live under the threat of those people. I am being told not to relax and that I should ensure that my security is as high as it was before the talks began. If that is the case, how can people, especially Opposition Members, say, "Christmas was wonderful. Everything is nice. It is all easing off." By God it is not easing off and I have an awful suspicion that, if the IRA does not get its way, it will return to weapons and bombs and we shall be sorry for any leniency and soft approach.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and, as I said at the beginning, he will have my support in the Lobby this evening.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I appreciate the assurance of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that the voice of the people from the north of Ireland will be heard. I appreciate the opportunity once again to squeeze in whatever few points I can, as we are approaching the end of the debate, on a matter that is affecting my constituents probably more than any other hon. Member's in Northern Ireland or in Britain.
I strongly disagree, however, with the view that the emergency legislation should be renewed. I believe that enormous change is taking place in the north of Ireland, that the community there is crying out for a new beginning, that the Government have not responded with the vision, the courage or the imagination to create a new dispensation of justice.
I believe that that refusal shows the Government's lack of appreciation of the fact that six months of peace and what has gone on within the community have created a radically new context within which the prevention of terrorism Act will work in future. I believe that their refusal to change has made it more difficult to start the essential work of obtaining confidence in and constructive support for a system of justice. It is a uniquely significant opportunity for us to reverse the trend that exists in the north of Ireland, to build a new system of justice that can command support and confidence and can strengthen human rights protection in Northern Ireland and for Irish people in Britain.
I believe that it is essential that a move is made now to create a new system of justice, one that is in tune with the mood of hope and peace. I believe that the political process and justice—we should not forget this point—are not separate entities within Northern Ireland. They are interlocked. They are interdependent, and one cannot be progressed in isolation from the other, as we will learn as we go further down the road. This is an opportunity lost, in my view, because the refusal even to soften the contours of the Act makes our difficult task in Northern Ireland all the more difficult.
Many tributes have been paid to Mr. John Rowe, in relation to his report. I shall try to be honest. I believe that the report is flimsy. It is riddled with contradictions and, indeed, inaccuracies. It is a report on which no Government could base their future thinking. It is something that bears examination.
I make this point strongly. In the context of whatever further examination is to come, I make the plea now, on behalf of good sense, that Mr. John Rowe QC does not carry out that review. His job was to carry out a review of the legislation, yet in effect he has asked the Government, under section 27(6)(b), to review their own legislation. He has refused to do so. The contradictions run right through his entire report.
Let us start at the very beginning. Mr. Rowe tells us:
a careful assessment must be made of the present situation in N.I. in order to judge the continuing need for the PTA".
He then proceeds to ignore that dictum, going so far as to observe, in the very same paragraph:
I must reach a view without thinking what its effect might be".
What a luxury; what myopia for someone to have who is reviewing a piece of legislation as stringent and draconian as this. He says:
I cannot have regard to such things.
Peace is what he is talking about. He also says:
I must reach a view without thinking what its effect might be"?
He is talking about peace and the changing situation.
Then, of course, on page 10, he tells us:
However, I am allowed, I am sure, to have regard to current events.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Mallon: I am not giving way. I have been present since the debate began. I shall give way, as I would not like to be accused of pique.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reconsidering. Both he and the hon. Member for Blackburn have misrepresented Mr. Rowe's attitude to the question. On page 2 of the report, when Mr. Rowe says that he cannot have regard to such things, what he is saying, quite clearly, is that he cannot have regard to signals. Those are political matters, and he is not a politician.


He does go on the say, as the hon. Gentleman says, that he can have regard to the current state of the situation in Northern Ireland in the context of making an assessment as to the risk and threat from terrorism. There is a clear distinction between those two, and Mr. Rowe has correctly and clearly identified that distinction.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State. I am glad that I gave way to him. The reality of the situation is that, in the very first page of the report, Mr. Rowe contradicts himself twice, and does so twice in the next paragraph as well.
Let us not end there. Let us look at his observations in relation to exclusion orders. Exclusion orders, let us remind ourselves, have been revoked by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary says that he will revoke most of his. Even Lord Colville accepted the evidence against exclusion orders, because they are a political decision, made by politicians, without any element of judicial review. They are made without the person concerned knowing the reasons why the decision was made.
Mr. Rowe tells us, in paragraph 27:
anyone with experience of such applications—
for a judicial review—
knows what a strain they are"—
oh, dearie me—
in the sense that the natural rules are not fully in place.
The natural rules of what? The natural rules of justice. The man is talking about a judicial input into the decision-making process in relation to exclusion orders.
He goes further. Because the person's position would not be put, the judge therefore
would not be hearing both sides: the rules of natural justice would simply be absent.
Those are the word of the man, the QC, who has given his judgment on exclusion orders. If that is his view of judicial input, how can he advocate that exclusion orders, which are based on the decisions of politicians who are advised by civil servants, without any argument against or legal representation, be kept intact, as he has recommended?
In relation to arrest and seven-day detention—section 14—I remind the House that, in 1994, 353 extension orders applied in the north of Ireland. Mr. Rowe tells us that applications for an extension state the ground of arrest. On a substantial number of occasions, especially in Northern Ireland, the reason is described not as evidence or even circumstantial evidence but as "reliable intelligence".
He states:
The precise details and source of the intelligence are not stated, and I have not seen them.
In paragraph 34 he states:
I have read the file relating to each one.
He drew the conclusion:
The second part of the review is, in broad terms, to see if the powers have been fairly and properly exercised. My view is that … they have".
His view is that they have been fairly exercised, but he has not seen the intelligence and does not know the basis on which decisions were made. However, he declares that the powers have been "fairly and properly exercised". Any lawyer would question the validity of that judgment in relation to both those matters.
There is suspicion or belief that section 14 of the PTA and sections 17 and 18 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act are being used to trawl for information. Innocent people are arrested and detained for up to seven days in search of information. We should not be surprised by that, because a former Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, told us that that was exactly the case, and he gave the reasons.
He said:
The use of the powers of detention under the legislation has acted, first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have been detained.
The law in this country is being used as a deterrent against people other than those who have been detained. That is sustained and supported by John Rowe QC.
Sir Leon went even further, when he was questioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The right hon. Gentleman said:
Will the Home Secretary make this point absolutely clear as it is crucial to many of us? Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?
The Home Secretary's reply was remarkable. He said:
It has been made clear not by me but by the courts that that is a legitimate and necessary use of the power."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol.47, c.55–6.]
That finds favour with John Rowe QC, who has written this review which had garnered so much support and confidence. People in Britain should be asking the question that I am asking, because there are victims of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in this country's legal and judicial system, and its process of justice is one of those victims. People should look carefully at that.
Schedule 5(16) relates to ports and border controls. There is not a word as to how the legislation there may be softened. A person can be held for up to 12 hours without even a reasonable suspicion. People may ask, "Held by whom?" It does not have to he by a police officer. Anyone can lose his liberty for up to 12 hours at the whim, not even on a reasonable suspicion, of someone who is not a police officer.
Mr. Rowe thinks highly of that, because he says:
The checks on these persons not hitherto known were selective or random steps.
That is again a random trawl for information. Because of the issues that face us, we must look at those salient points, and sincerely and legally question the validity and veracity of the report by John Rowe QC.
The loss of mutual respect between state and citizens cannot be restored by attempts to cling to unjustifiable powers which degrade the individual by making him vulnerable to the arbitrary and capricious exercise of those powers. Those are not my words—they are much too flowery. They are from a legal authority in the North of Ireland.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is part of the past, and must be consigned to the lumber room of history to gather dust, rather than remain an active factor in shaping the future. The justification for its continued existence, a present and real immediate threat to the life of the nation—an emergency, as it is termed in the European convention on human rights, threatening the life of the nation—having passed, the Act ought not to be reviewed.


A new, imaginative approach should be brought to the whole problem. We are sticking in the past, at a time when we should be leading the community in the north of Ireland and in Britain into a future with a new system of justice that will never make the mistakes of the past.

Mr. Clive Soley: For the first time, the debate on this legislation is taking place in the context of peace in Northern Ireland. It is sad that some Unionist Members and some Back-Bench Tory Members do not seem to recognise the impact that our debates on this issue can have. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister for the way that they responded to peace process developments in Northern Ireland. All hon. Members, including Unionist Members, owe a debt to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Perhaps we should bear that in mind in the debate.
Every time we look at the Act, we need to remind ourselves that it is a double-edged weapon. The vast majority of people who are picked up under the Act are never charged, let alone convicted—in many years, it is 90 per cent.—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has said, the reason is that the Act is designed to collect information.
That is why it has played into the hands of the terrorists, and why I said to the Home Secretary, through an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), that there has always been an alternative. It was to use the security forces, and that argument is infinitely stronger now that the security forces are not as stretched as they used to be. That applies to MI5 because of the collapse in the cold war, and in Britain because of the lack of the threat of Northern Ireland terror.
The Home Secretary missed an opportunity to respond in the way that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister responded, by making it clear not just that he wished to get rid of the legislation—I can understand that—but that it was his intention. If only he could say, as he avoided saying on the radio this morning, "I want to get rid of this Act, and I will get rid of it if the peace process continues."
The fact that he did not do that has led many people to worry—I put it no higher than that—that he wants to keep it on the statute book as a general Act to use against terrorism from whatever source. I hope that he is not saying that, and that at some stage he will take the opportunity, although not in the middle of my speech as I have only about two minutes left, to make it clear that he intends, whether in one year or five, to get rid of the Act if the peace process continues. That is what we need to hear.
The objections to the legislation by some Opposition Members are sometimes treated as related to a civil liberties issue. Some hon. Members make that mistake. It is not a civil liberties issue. The legislation has always been a fundamental threat to our constitutional assumption of separation of power between the judiciary and the Government.
Currently, a politician can decide whether a person should live in one part of the United Kingdom or in another. Under quite a bit of pressure, not least from me

when I gave evidence in writing, that led Lord Colville to say that this was internal exile. It is the first time that it has existed in this country since Henry VIII. A politician should not have that power, not just because of civil rights but because of our constitution.
Similarly, a politician—the Home Secretary—should not have the power to decide that the police can detain a person and question him. A politician decides both those issues, and that is a fundamental assault not just on civil liberties but on our constitution. The danger is that that will become permanent. Again, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred to that.
The Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939 was introduced to deal with a number of acts of terror that died out in 1940. The Act was kept on the statute book until 1954. We are in danger of keeping the Prevention of Terrorism Act on the statute book for a similar length of time. We need to sow confidence in the peace process. The Government have made enormous moves on this matter, and I pay my compliments to them. Why not have trust and confidence in the people of Britain and of Northern Ireland, and say that we can stop using these powers?
The Government have an opportunity today to secure automatic agreement if they stop using exclusion orders and detention powers that are used by a politician to take people in for questioning, and if they give a commitment to review or to end the use of the Act as long as the peace process continues. This is not just about party political agreement, but about many hon. Members' conviction that we in Britain have never had this opportunity before.
Despite all the bombings and killings that took place, in the previous century as a result of Northern Ireland affairs—we forget that there were many of those—the Victorians never introduced internal exile or gave power to a politician to hold people in police stations. They were right not to give that power. Every hon. Member who agrees that this policy is counter-productive, undermines the peace process and, above all, threatens all the things for which the House and this country have stood for hundreds of years will join me and my colleagues in the No Lobby tonight.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement of the lifting of 16 of the 56 remaining exclusion orders. We note his willingness to continue to review the remaining exclusion orders on an individual basis.
As he is aware, the exclusion orders deny the right of a United Kingdom citizen to live where they choose. That aspect of the matter was included in the joint framework document, where both the British and Irish Governments pledged to encourage the adoption of a charter or covenant of fundamental rights within their respective jurisdictions, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland.
A number of fundamental rights were included: the right to freedom of expression of religion, the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means, and the right to live wherever one chooses. We wanted the Home Secretary to acknowledge today the aim of his Government in that joint framework document, and to consider the necessity of the future use of exclusion orders. He and other hon. Members, including the hon.


Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), have argued that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1994 should be renewed in its entirety on the advice of the latest operational audit produced last month by J. J. Rowe QC.
He did so advise, but he also stated that the Act
should be kept under review in the next twelve months.
It is more that a question of timing. The valuable and detailed speeches from the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out some of the problems in the report. They showed that, if the Home Secretary could have been clearer tonight about his intention, his desire for and his timing on a general review, some of the difficulties that we have had in the House would have been avoided.
The position is uncertain. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it has always been difficult to strike a balance between understandable and necessary caution and a response to an evolving and changing peace. The Home Secretary said that he did not want to lower his guard. He should not, but he could raise his sights. Occasionally, caution is needed; occasionally, courage is needed too.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) drew an interesting analogy with what Sir Paul Condon, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, said yesterday. He stated that terrorism was no longer among the six priorities in his policing plan for the new financial year. The police have ended armed road blocks, and the redeployment of officers from central London has started. Of course, Sir Paul stated that he had kept his anti-terrorist operations intact, saying:
You don't dismantle anything you might need at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning".
Like Sir Paul, we are asking the Home Secretary to propose a change of priorities. We should have a general, full and independent review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, consider how one can suspend the power to make exclusion orders under section 27, and introduce a judicial element, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, to approve extended prevention orders. In that way, the Home Secretary could acknowledge the changes that are taking place, but keep the process in perspective.
It is not the case. as the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) implied, that Labour Members are opposed to anti-terrorist legislation. In the debate, we have readily acknowledged the need for it. We support proscription, to which the hon. Member for Spelthorne referred. We support the need for anti-terrorist legislation in relation to terrorist funding.
Only last week upstairs, without a Division, we let through an order that was part of the PTA to facilitate seizure of assets. That went through without opposition, and it was approved by us. The changing nature of terrorism legislation is the reason why we want to have a review now. The changes in international terrorism could have been taken into account in the months ahead.
The PTA has been a contentious piece of legislation because it gives powers to politicians, police and courts that go beyond those granted by ordinary law. In the past 20 years, unity has existed among hon. Members on both sides of the House, not only in our utter contempt for people dedicated to the indiscriminate and deliberate killing of innocent people, but in our sympathy for the trauma and pain of individuals and families who have

suffered as the maiming and death have continued. They include Robert Bradford, who was not mentioned earlier. Like his friends and family, he will not be forgotten.
At the same time, it is important to give our support and thoughts to the families of people serving in the Army and police, who still suffer the loss of those near to them. We should like readily to acknowledge the efforts of the men and women in the police and the Army over these extremely tense and difficult years to minimise and contain the violence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, the PTA was introduced by a Labour Government and supported by the Labour party for a number of years. Labour Members' concerns grew because what was initially a temporary measure began to look more and more permanent.
It also became clear year on year that, in a civilised society, it is wrong in principle to detain a suspect for nine days without judicial involvement, and to oblige a man or woman through the use of exclusion orders to live in parts of the country stipulated by politicians. In a civilised society, Governments cannot ignore the rule of law; otherwise, by their very actions, they destroy what they are trying to protect and defend.
Today, hon. Members have acknowledged that last year my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition tried to achieve cross-party co-operation for an independent review. We were unsuccessful.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am not surprised.

Ms Mowlam: I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not find it surprising. Last year and this year, we have done our best to reach an agreement across the House. We supported the Government on the Downing street declaration, and on the framework document. We tried again to achieve bipartisan consensus on this issue. The hon. Lady should acknowledge that this year the position has moved on considerably. We have had more than six months of peace in Northern Ireland. Informal talks are beginning on how that process can move forward.
As we have often done in the House, we acknowledge and applaud what has been done by the Prime Minister, Northern Ireland Members, politicians in Dublin and. above all, the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve the peace process to continue, and who have worked desperately in the past six months to keep it going. We support the efforts of all the politicians and people in the peace process. We will continue to work constructively to try to achieve peace.
I say to hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber that we want a general review by a person of independent and high status, the introduction of judicial approval for detention order extensions, and suspension of the powers to make exclusion orders. Suspension is not possible under section 27. The Government should agree not to use those powers while the peace process continues.
After the vote tonight and in the months ahead, we will continue that policy, because we believe that it is important. Such legitimate demands have wide support in the House this evening. We do not want to divide the House on the order, but we shall do so. I hope that, in the months ahead, we will not have to do so again as the peace process develops.

Mr. Howard: This debate takes place against a different background from that of recent years, and all hon. Members who have contributed to it have remarked on that fact.
My hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) were robust in their support for the need for these provisions. My hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke and for Spelthorne based their speeches on careful analyses and assessments of the Rowe report. In relation to the matters causing them concern, I commend to my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Hayes and Harlington the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I suggest that they study his words carefully; if they do so, I am sure that they will find that their anxieties are allayed.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) launched into a diatribe against the order and its provisions, and ended up calling for consensus. I must tell him and the Labour party that, so long as there remains a risk and a threat, there cannot be a consensus based on a suggestion that we should lower our guard, dismantle our defences against terrorism or remove powers that are necessary. That is the truth of the matter, but, of course, Opposition Members do not like to be reminded of it.
The truth is that Opposition Members will vote for the dismantling of all these provisions, and they will vote for the removal even of those powers that they regard as necessary.

Mr. Alun Michael: We have no option.

Mr. Howard: They will vote in that way not because, as the hon. Gentleman just said, they have no option, but because, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) pointed out, their leaders do not have the courage to face out their Back Benchers who will never support this legislation. If people ever want to know how a Labour Government would behave, they should study carefully the Labour party's attitude to this legislation, and they will find no better or more accurate guide.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a characteristic speech, although it was not always clear to me whether he was supporting the order. I suggest that the order itself is the strongest indication of the Government's determination to protect the security of the people of the United Kingdom—those in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. That is what the powers in the order are all about, and that is why I am asking the House to renew its provisions this evening.
The hon. Gentleman raised one issue in particular that I should like to explain. It was in relation to Mr. Rowe's report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my approach was different from that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Secretary. However, my right hon. and learned Friend's answer of 17 February to which the hon. Gentleman referred was about a different report by Mr. Rowe—his separate report on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991—which was substantially completed before the ceasefire. Indeed, that report did not fully take account of the new situation, but

the more recently completed review of the PTA emphatically does so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that explanation on board.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), like the hon. Member for Upper Bann, asked for further consideration to be given to judicial involvement in the detention and exclusion procedures. I understand the concerns that lie behind that request. Both hon. Gentlemen said that they were sure that a way could be found to achieve that, but did not identify that way.
That is the difficulty—a real, practical difficulty—to which no solution has been found by any independent reviewers who have considered such matters in the past. It is easy to say, "A way must be found," but less easy to find and identify it. I have examined the matter myself and come to the conclusion that the difficulties in the path of finding the solution are indeed formidable. I do not believe that they could easily be overcome.
There was great strength in the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). We must always be keen in these matters to avoid confusing form with substance, and I think that there is a considerable danger of our doing so. Mr. Rowe got it right when he talked in his report about the need to avoid a situation in which a procedure was regarded as judicial simply because the person carrying it out was a judge. There is a great deal of force in that observation.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, especially as time is short. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was referring to how the problems were avoided in France where there can be a judicial review with extensive detention. To pray in aid what the right hon. Gentleman said in fact points up the fact that there is a solution if only the Home Secretary looks to France.

Mr. Howard: I confess that I understood my right hon. Friend's intervention in an entirely different way. He was pointing out that we have the substance, which achieves the maximum protection of the liberties of the individual by the strict limit—a matter of days—that we place on detention of this kind, whereas other countries may have more of the form. However, if one looks at the substance and finds that someone can be detained for two years in some circumstances, one can but conclude that this country's approach is far superior on every count, including that of protecting the liberties of the individual.

Mr. Mallon: Is it not the case that, where the judgment is being made on intelligence, not evidence, a judicial review will not work, and that, where the judgment is being made on evidence, there is no call for the judicial review? The problem is that people are being held for seven days, not on evidence but on intelligence.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the entire basis for these provisions. If there is evidence, people are taken before a court and convicted, but, in the kind of emergency that we have been facing, one has to take action against people where there is no evidence that would warrant a conviction, but where there is intelligence on which one must act if one wants to save lives. That is the reason that we take action based on intelligence, and that is why it is not susceptible to a judicial process.


I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman took the line he did, and that he criticised Mr. Rowe and his report. There was no basis for the strictures that he passed on Mr. Rowe, and I hope that he will reconsider his attitude. I fear that the attitude that he displayed demonstrates just how far there is to go before we have a true meeting of minds on the future of Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position.
The speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was the most muddled to which the House has been treated for a very long time. He was completely unable to explain why he was inviting his party to vote against the measure. He cannot take issue with its provisions, but is inviting his party to vote against it for a reason that has nothing to do with the measure itself, and nothing to do with the powers contained in the order.
He is inviting his party to vote against it because he says that he wants some different kind of review now, rather than at the appropriate time. It was a disgraceful speech, on a fundamental matter affecting the safety and security of the people of this country, and is explicable only on the basis that the leadership of his party is not prepared to face out those Labour Back Benchers who would never vote for legislation of this kind.
It was not without significance that the only contributions from Back-Bench Labour Members were from those who are opposed root and branch to the legislation. That is the truth that lies behind the fine words of Labour Front-Bench Members. We will not be deflected from our determination to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the lives and security of the people of this United Kingdom. That is why I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 212.

Division No. 98]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brandreth, Gyles


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bright, Sir Graham


Alton, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amess, David
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arbuthnot, James
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Ashby, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butler, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beggs, Roy
Carttiss, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Clappison, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Booth, Hartley
Coe, Sebastian


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bowls, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Couchman, James





Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrel, Rt Hon Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evennett, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Faber, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fabricant, Michael
Knox, Sir David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Forth, Eric
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Legg, Barry


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Leigh, Edward


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


French, Douglas
Lidington, David


Gale, Roger
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Gallie, Phil
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Gardiner, Sir George
Lord, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Luff, Peter


Gill, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gillan, Cheryl
Lynne, Ms Liz


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McCrea, The Reverend William


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gorst Sir John
MacKay, Andrew


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Maclean, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maclennan, Robert


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
Maddock, Diana


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Madel, Sir David


Hague, William
Maginnis, Ken


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Maitland, Lady Olga


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Major, Rt Hon John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Malone, Gerald


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mans, Keith


Hannam, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Hargreaves, Andrew
Marlow, Tony


Harris, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Harvey, Nick
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Haselhurst, Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hawksley, Warren
Merchant, Piers


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heald, Oliver
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Moate, Sir Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hendry, Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Nicholls, Patrick


Horam, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Norris, Steve


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Page, Richard






Paice, James
Stern, Michael


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Streeter, Gary


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Sumberg, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Sweeney, Walter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sykes, John


Pawsey, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rendel, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Riddick, Graham
Thurnham, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robathan, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tracey, Richard


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tredinnick, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Trimble, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Tyler, Paul


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Sackville, Tom
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wallace, James


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waterson, Nigel


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Willetts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Spink, Dr Robert
Wood, Timothy


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sproat, Iain
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mr. David Lightbown and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Burden, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet  (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell-Savours, D N


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry
Cann, Jamie


Battle, John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Coffey, Ann


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Blunkett, David
Connarty, Michael


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith
Corston, Jean


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cousins, Jim





Cox, Tom
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McMaster, Gordon


Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Davidson, Ian
MacShane, Denis


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphily)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Mallon, Seamus


Dewar, Donald
Mandelson, Peter


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Donohoe, Brian H
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dowd, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Enright, Derek
Meale, Alan


Etherington, Bill
Michael, Alun


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Milburn, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Miller, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morley, Elliot


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Fraser, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Fyfe, Marie
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galbraith, Sam
Mudie, George


Galloway, George
Mullin, Chris


Gapes, Mike
Murphy, Paul


Gerrard, Neil
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godman, Dr Noman A
O'Brien, Mike (NW'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Edward


Gordon, Mildred
Olner, Bill


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pearson, Ian


Grocott, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gunnell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hain, Peter
Pike, Peter L


Hall, Mike
Pope, Greg


Hanson, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Heppel, John
Purchase, Ken


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hodge, Margaret
Randall, Stuart


Hood, Jimmy
Raynsford, Nick


Hoon, Geoffrey
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hutton, John
Rooney, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Ruddock, Joan


Jamieson, David
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Short, Clare


Jowell, Tessa
Simpson, Alan


Keen, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Khabra, Piara S
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lewis, Terry
Soley, Clive


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Spearing, Nigel


Litherland, Robert
Spellar, John


Livingstone, ken
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steinberg, Gerry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stevenson, George


McAllion, John
Stott, Roger


McAvocy, Thomas
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McFall, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McGracy, Eddie
Timms, Stephen






Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Touhig, Don
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Warded, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Wigley, Datycld
Mr. Joe Benton and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'nW)
Mr. Eric Clarke.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

Madam Speaker: Before we come to motion No. 3, which is also on Northern Ireland, it may be helpful if I make it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has already been drawn to your attention that there is a serious problem about common visas. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation. The initial recommendation that the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House was made, as is very much the case these days, only after very serious consideration. The matter is now—apparently—to be put before the Council of Ministers for decision very shortly.
I see that, by chance, the Home Secretary happens to be in the House; perhaps he would like to contribute on this point of order. We are given to understand that the matter will not to be debated on the Floor of the House until after the decision has been taken. If that is the case, it is riding roughshod over the Committee. Would you, Madam Speaker, be prepared to comment, as it is a very serious question?

Madam Speaker: I am having inquiries made. I was very concerned about the point of order which was raised this morning. I have been in the Chair for most of the day, but I assure the hon. Member and the House that I am having inquiries made. I think that the situation is rather more complicated than that put to me through points of order. That is why I want chapter and verse on the matter and not simply to listen to what is coming across the Floor of the House. I intend to make a ruling on it tomorrow.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Would it help, Madam Speaker, if I attempted to shed some extra light on this matter? What is for decision at the Council of Ministers tomorrow is simply the format of the visa, a suggestion that there should be a common format for visas. That was described—I speak from memory and think that I have the gist of it, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will bear with me if I do not reproduce the exact wording of the document to which he referred—in the document as a technical matter, which is, indeed, precisely what it is. It is a matter of design rather than substance. I hope that that will go some way towards allaying my hon. Friend's anxieties.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. First, it authorises expenditure of £198.2 million in the 1994-95 spring supplementary estimates. That will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £6.0221 billion for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2.705 billion for 1995-96. That will enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1995-96 main estimates are brought before the House later this year.


As you have already remarked, Madam Speaker, the draft order does not cover expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order and other services. Details of the sum sought are given in the estimates booklet and the statement of sums required on account, which, as usual, are available in the Vote Office. I shall now turn to the estimates.
Some of the votes seek token increases only because new pressures have been offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. To give hon. Members the maximum time to speak, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought. In the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, which covers expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures, a token increase of £1,000 is required. Some £2 million is for additional uptake under the farm and conservation grant scheme. That is offset by savings in other areas.
In the Department's vote 2, covering local support measures, a net increase of £25.2 million is sought. The vote includes £26.5 million for the agricultural development operational programme, as a result of a higher number of claims than was originally anticipated. There is £700,000 for the disease eradication programme, and £1.3 million represents the carry forward of capital and running costs underspends from 1993-94. Those increases are partially offset by reduced requirements in other areas of the vote.
For the Department of Economic Development, increases are sought in three votes. A net increase of some £19 million is sought in vote 1. That includes £4.7 million for the provision of land and buildings by the Industrial Development Board. That is to meet expenditure on factory buildings for recent inward investment projects, and reflects the continuing success of the board in attracting competitive companies to Northern Ireland. There is £17.7 million for selective assistance to industry, mainly for existing inward investment projects. Also in this vote, £6.5 million is required for the Shorts recapitalisation programme. Those increases are offset by increased receipts totalling £8.5 million from the sale of IDB factories and lands.
In vote 2, a token increase of £1,000 is sought. There will he about £600,000 for the Northern Ireland tourist board to enable it to increase its efforts to promote and market Northern Ireland as a tourist destination. That increase is offset by increased receipts elsewhere in the vote.
The Department of Economic Development's vote 4 makes substantive provision for the expenses incurred in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Those costs have been met from the second instalment of payments from the Northern Ireland Electricity share issue.
For the Department of the Environment, a net increase of some £5.4 million is sought in vote 1. That includes about £4.3 million for maintenance of the road network and for additional capital works. Some £800,000 is for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency. Those increases are partially offset by increased receipts, including those for car parking and ferry services. Also in the vote, more than £47 million is appropriated in respect of the sale of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have read press reports suggesting that the Government may have to repay

to the European Community sums paid to help fund the development of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. in the past. Can the Minister tell us whether those fears that we may have to repay substantial sums are unfounded or whether they are justified? Is the subject being explored? Indeed, has such a request been made at all?

Sir John Wheeler: As I know, the hon. Gentleman takes an informed interest in Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. I, too, read many things in the newspapers, most of which I do not believe; but if I can give the hon. Gentleman an authoritative answer to his question during the debate, or in correspondence, I shall gladly do so.
In vote 2, covering housing, token provision of £1,000 is sought. The £4.7 million required for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive includes increased resources for maintenance and to offset a fall in rental income from lower than anticipated house sales. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is expected to be about £564 million—£5 million more than in 1993–94.
In vote 4, covering environmental and other services, a net increase of some £3 million is sought. That includes £1.3 million for comprehensive development schemes and various adjustments between programmes. Increased expenditure is partially offset by additional receipts of £2.5 million.
In vote 5, covering office and general accommodation, £5.4 million is for new public building works, alterations and purchases.
For the Department of Education, a net increase of £2.7 million is sought in vote I. That includes about £4.1 million for grants to education and library boards, mainly for maintenance, minor works and equipment. It also provides for accommodation for Kilkeel high school following an arson attack last year. There is £1.7 million for voluntary schools, mainly for health and safety and for equipment. Those increases are offset by savings elsewhere in the vote.
In vote 2, an additional £5.4 million is sought. About £3 million is for mandatory awards and student loans, reflecting increased demand. There is £1.2 million for universities, mainly for essential equipment, and £400,000 for arts and museums, including the adaptation of premises to improve access and facilities for disabled people. Increases are also required for departmental administration, youth services and the Armagh observatory and planetarium.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, a net increase of £12.9 million is sought in vote 1. That includes £9 million for hospital, community health and personal social services and £6.5 million for capital expenditure. It also includes £1 million to provide help for persons disabled by violence. Those increases are offset by increased receipts and a reduction of £3.4 million in loans provision to trusts.
In vote 3, additional net provision of £2.1 million is required. That includes about £7 million for administration costs caused by increased work loads and capital expenditure. Those increases are offset by reductions elsewhere and by a net increase in receipts of some £4.9 million, mainly from the Department of Social Security for administering the Belfast benefit centre and the Belfast Child Support Agency centre.
Finally, in vote 4, which covers social security, £80.5 million is sought, mainly because of a greater than anticipated demand for income support and disability


benefits, especially attendance and disability living allowances. That is offset by a decrease in income support and family credit.
In my opening remarks I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the order. I hope that, in replying to the debate, I shall be able to do my best to respond to the points raised by hon. Members. If I cannot reply tonight, I shall ensure that the hon. Members concerned receive a response in writing. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. John Spellar: It is unfortunate that tonight's debate has been curtailed by the Government. Last year, the corresponding debate went from 4.30 pm to 11.30 pm, whereas today's debate will last for less than three hours. Do the Government think that the concerns of Northern Ireland have decreased so much in the past year? The welcome changes brought about by the peace process mean that we should be devoting more time to discussing the issues, rather than less.
Front-Bench Members must now restrict their remarks so that the elected representatives from Northern Ireland—and other Members who take a keen interest in Northern Ireland affairs—can speak. We note that, during a debate on day-to-day matters of importance to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a remarkable lack of Conservative Back Benchers compared with Opposition Members.
The Government's behaviour in restricting the debate is frankly shabby, and would seem to be motivated more by petty considerations of who was in what Lobby last week than by the serious interests of the Province. In the brief time available, I shall address the order and its implications for the people of Northern Ireland.

Sir John Wheeler: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman's remark to stand on the record. There is no question of this debate being curtailed because of the voting habits of any hon. Member. Such a proposition would be outrageous, and I strongly deny it.

Mr. Spellar: Perhaps in his closing remarks the Minister will he able to tell the House why the Government have curtailed the debate. He will have had adequate time to get an answer to that question.
We must look at what the order means to the people of Northern Ireland, and what the so-called peace dividend will mean. Planted headlines in the Tory-supporting press may claim that
Ulster people share £160 million peace bonus",
but there is not much to suggest that in the figures.
If Northern Ireland's building employers are to be believed, they are facing a peace deficit. The employers' state of trade survey at the end of 1994 makes for grim reading. There has been a 15 per cent. reduction in construction activity through 1994, and inquiry levels for new work remain below the level required to maintain any significant recovery. The employers estimate that proposed expenditure on new capital projects in the next financial year, 1995-96, will be £427 million.
That represents a fall in cash terms of some £28 million, and a fall in real terms of 8 per cent. It would seem that, far from balancing out the reduction in construction activity arising from the decline in violence, the Government are accentuating it.
We welcome the Minister's recent action—following lobbying not only from builders but from representatives of Northern Ireland's political parties—to try to ensure a more regular flow of work to the construction industry, but that in itself cannot resolve the problem of the reduction in the overall volume of work coming from central Government.
Although it is likely that more private investment will follow the cessation of violence—it appears from the Minister's statement that there are welcome developments there—it now appears that, in the short term, there will be a decline. We recognise that the building industry lives in the short term. Once again, the Government—in their adherence to dogma—seem to be reinforcing the economic cycle, rather than evening it out. Ironically, the Government's actions in the construction industry run counter to their objective of reducing the levels of disadvantage between the communities, as construction has one of the highest levels of employment in the Catholic work force.
The Government have demonstrated once again their inability and unwillingness to plan, and that they have a mental block that prevents them from properly integrating their efforts with funds from outside, such as from the EU structural fund, the EU initiative for peace fund and the International Fund for Ireland. It is clear that people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the lack of any clear strategic plan from the Government to co-ordinate the way in which additional funding could be used. Earlier in the year, local councillors had cause to complain about cuts in the rate support grant which weakened their ability to provide matching funds for European programmes. That shows a lack of understanding of the realities of the financial opportunities which are available.
As the UK experienced in 1945, the major adjustments required by a shift to peace need a planned approach if major dislocation is to be avoided and investment is to be effective. Heaven knows, that investment is needed. Unemployment in Northern Ireland, as has been said many times from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere, is still—despite the recent welcome decline—12.1 per cent. of the work force, compared with 8.4 per cent. in Britain.
Of the 90,000 unemployed, well over half have been unemployed for more than one year. That compares only with the real unemployment black spots of Britain. In some areas, the figures are dramatically worse. In Derry—where I was on Monday—there is 23 per cent. male unemployment, and there are similar figures in Newry and Strabane. We will press the Government strongly to remove the restrictions on targeting investment on the long-term unemployed.
There is no doubt about the need for investment. If we take the vital area of communications, the amount of freight traffic on Northern Ireland's roads is growing by 7 per cent. a year. On the Belfast to Dublin route, it is growing by 20 per cent. a year. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has identified a road maintenance backlog of some £60 million, and the Government's own report on the condition of roads stated that much of Northern Ireland's road network was constructed in the 1960s and is close to the end of its desired life. The Minister rightly stressed the attractions that are needed for inward investment, and an adequate communications infrastructure is vital.


On housing, the Government are at last responding, but that is against a background of a slump in the completion of low-cost houses from 4,572 in 1983 to 1,473 in 1993, and in the face of a rising housing list which now stands at 22,740. Quite frankly, the Government would be better served by letting the Housing Executive get on with the job rather than trying to hive off work into agencies and by compulsory competitive tendering.
On energy, the Government should stop being blinded by their rhetoric, and should recognise that many companies are facing steep increases in their electricity bills. The Government should abandon their attempts to set up an electricity pool, which would make matters worse. They should consider whether the Scottish interconnector will create or cost jobs in Northern Ireland. The Government should have a major rethink about an energy policy, and should recognise that they need a policy in the first place. They cannot leave it all to a mythical and non-existent market.
On water, rather than wasting money on expensive consultants' reports which tell them how to hive off each and every water authority activity, the Government should look for investment to reduce the 28 per cent. loss of water caused by leakage from reservoirs through to the consumers. They should take note of the widespread opposition across parties and communities—including the trade unions representing the work force—to the threats to privatise the water industry after the next general election, and also to the potential introduction of water metering as part of a review of the charging procedures.
The Minister may say that all I have discussed up to now involves the public sector and that the Government rightly wish to take the opportunity presented by the peace process to obtain a shift in the balance with the private sector, while recognising that the public sector plays a far larger part in the economy of Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. We endorse that objective, although we point out that the Government do not seem to have an effective short-term strategy for evening out the temporary dislocations of that shift.
What of that main objective to achieve the economic regeneration of Northern Ireland through the private sector? It is very clear that there is a window of opportunity, on which we must capitalise. In the words of the latest respected Coopers and Lybrand report, "Review and Prospects", which is produced each year:
Every effort should he made to maximise the opportunities that may arise from the international goodwill displayed towards the Province.
It describes a
window of opportunity over the next 12 months to build a foundation for future inward investment.
We all welcomed the investment conference in Belfast in December and we look forward to the conference in Washington in May and hope that it will help to attract inward investment. What the Minister had to say about advance factories was also welcome. The Government must recognise, however, that in the cut-throat and competitive world of inward investment a very strong and positive Government contribution is vital. They should be not merely considering new inward investment, important though that is, but studying the impact of Government

measures and assistance on existing industry, which will provide most of any work force increase that helps to cut the horrific unemployment figures.
The Government should be asking the Ministry of Defence whether its ordering programme is helping or hindering the progress of Shorts as a world-class competitor. They should also be talking to the Department of Trade and Industry and asking it what backing it and other Departments will give, given the exciting developments in oil exploration away from the continental shelf into the Atlantic, to ensure that Harland and Wolff gets the contracts for the floating production vessels. What pressure will the Government bring to bear to ensure that the new generation of work comes to Belfast? It will be work not merely for that field but for a whole new generation of oil production developments around the world.
What are the Government doing for the mass of small firms in Northern Ireland to ensure adequate sources of finance to fund expansion? Again, one can see from the Coopers and Lybrand report that constraints on internal finance are one of the main reasons why firms in Northern Ireland have constraints on future investment.
What of the new industries, such as international communications-related industries, which are starting to spring up and to provide employment? The fundamental question is whether the Government will persuade the banks to invest some of the money in Northern Ireland industry that they are throwing away in the casinos of the derivatives market.
There is no doubt that the views of ordinary people in Northern Ireland hover between optimism and apprehension and that they welcome the return to normality and pray for it to become the norm. They recognise the unfinished agenda of jobs, homes, roads, water and energy. They—and we—need positive answers from the Minister tonight, to convince us that the order will begin to deal with those needs. If not, frankly, the Government should give way to a party that will.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with transport and harbour services. I was pleased to have the opportunity this morning to welcome the Secretary of State for Transport to Larne harbour in my constituency, as he was able to see for himself recent developments which have been completed at a cost of £7 million, assisted by a 50 per cent. European regional development fund grant, under the Department of the Environment's Northern Ireland transport programme.
Larne harbour is well established as the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom. Last year, 1,870,751 passengers—nearly 2 million—445,885 cars and caravans and 376,680 commercial vehicles used the modernised port facilities. Those figures represent significant increases in all sectors and reflect the efficiency and reliability of the services which have made Larne Ireland's busiest ro-ro and ferry port, catering for 36 ferry arrivals and departures daily to Ardrossan, Cairnryan, Stranraer and Fleetwood.
Despite all that expenditure and further planned expenditure, however, strong rumours are circulating that the long association of Stena Sealink with the harbour may be severed in the near future and that the company


may relocate its conventional ferry service to Belfast. A few weeks ago I was advised by Stena Sealink that a decision regarding the company's future use of Larne will be made at the end of this month. It has already been announced that Stena Sealink plans to launch a new high speed super-ferry service between Belfast and Stranraer in the spring of 1996.
The developments at the ports of Warrenpoint, Londonderry, Belfast and Lame have all helped to mitigate the peripherality and disadvantages of Northern Ireland, and the substantial investment and European Union grants to the ports have helped Northern Ireland firms quickly to access European markets and have helped to increase tourism to Northern Ireland. The objectives of the grants for port and harbour modernisation have been realised and we now have reliable, economic and efficient services for shipowners, importers and exporters.
I am concerned that one of the key elements of the Department of the Environment's transport development strategy, in giving Larne harbour a complementary role to Belfast as Northern Ireland's principal ro-ro and passenger port, may be thwarted if the rumoured move of Stena Sealink becomes a reality. That concern is widely shared by employees and their families, whose livelihoods depend on employment provided at Larne harbour. Businesses have relocated to Belfast in the past, but after a time the same businesses returned to Larne. If the rumoured relocation of Stena Sealink to Belfast becomes a reality, it will have damaging consequences for the future prosperity of Larne and East Antrim, where hoteliers are currently planning to increase accommodation to cope with an expected upsurge in tourism if the present peace becomes permanent.
I call on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and on Ministers responsible for environment and economic development to initiate inquiries urgently to determine whether the higher average level of European assistance—up to 75 per cent. in the case of trust ports and Belfast port, compared with the 50 per cent. European Union assistance at Larne—has led to, or is leading to, distortions in competition.
Secondly, could business be attracted to ports prior to privatisation through very low tariff charges, perhaps made possible by cross-subsidy, with benefit expected to come on stream after privatisation, to the benefit of the new owners? Will Ministers investigate such charges and whether any inducement is being offered by any Northern Ireland port?
I also call on the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Ministers to monitor the impact on Northern Ireland ports of the vast sums of money being pumped into the Irish Republic—estimated to be running at the rate of £1 million per day for the next six years—especially when Interreg assistance for maritime links between Wales and the Irish Republic, combined with the profits from duty free sales on ferries, could cause further distortion and competition. Will Belfast harbour privatisation result in the clawback of some European Union grants?
Part II of the Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with roads. On previous occasions, I have mentioned the necessity of upgrading the Larne to Belfast road and I urge the Minister to endeavour to advance the start date for extending the dual carriageway from Gingles corner, Larne, and to follow the example set by the Secretary of State for Transport here and to plan thereafter

a succession of phased road developments until we have a dual carriageway all the way between Larne and Belfast. A start is required earlier than the 1997 date that has been promised.
I again appeal for priority to be given to the Carrickfergus to Belfast road project and for genuine sympathy, consideration and compromise to be shown by officials when negotiating with the frontagers whose homes will be severely affected by the necessary road works. The recent and current severe weather conditions in Northern Ireland have highlighted the total inadequacy of the Department of the Environment's road gritting programme in frosty conditions. I therefore ask for a reappraisal of the funding allocated and the inclusion of all school bus routes in regular salt and gritting schedules. Additional funding should be provided for the Department's road maintenance programme and future expenditure plans.
Does the Minister accept that Northern Ireland still has the lowest quality of early-years educational provision in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that children who have access to early-years nursery education or pre-school care and education are likely to achieve higher educational performance, less likely to be become involved in criminal activity in later life, less likely to have contact with welfare agencies, less likely to experience marital breakdown in adult life, and less likely as teenagers to get pregnant and become single parents?
Will the Minister confirm that the promised classroom assistants for Northern Ireland primary schools will be in post by September 1995? Will he confirm that the time allocation to each school will be based on the number of primary-one children of compulsory school age only enrolled at the school? Have the Departments of Finance and Personnel, of Health and Social Services and of Education reached interdepartmental agreement on the future funding of the Northern Ireland Preschool Playgroups Association yet? Can we be assured of equality of funding across Northern Ireland? Is it not disgraceful that in 1994 parents contributed £1 to £2.50 per day while health boards contributed only from 35p a day per child in the generous Eastern board area to as little as 10.4p per day in the Northern board area? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Shame, indeed.
How can funding for pre-school play groups in Northern Ireland continue to be kept lower than that received by most groups in England, Scotland and Wales? I hope that the Minister recognises the value of those groups and, in the absence of adequate nursery school provision, will better fund the Northern Ireland Preschool Playgroups Association while seeking to increase nursery school places in Northern Ireland.
I have strong reservations about the system of allocating extra funds to a school's budget for the purpose of targeting social deprivation and educational disadvantage. On what evidence was the decision made to allocate funds to schools based on the number of pupils receiving free meals in those schools? That funding is directing vast sums of money to maintained schools and significantly lesser sums to controlled schools, and is clearly perceived to be discriminating against the controlled sector. I wholeheartedly support the concept of targeting need fairly and equitably, but a more selective method of assessing entitlement to extra funds for social deprivation and educational disadvantage must be quickly found.


Construction costs in Northern Ireland have increased significantly of late, with the result that tender prices being returned to education and library boards for capital projects are higher than the present permitted spend level. Will the Minister carry out an early review and raise the ceiling at which education boards can accept tender prices and award contracts? At the same time, could any future moratorium on public spending in the Department of Education be lifted sufficiently early in the financial year to enable permitted expenditure to be incurred?
I pay tribute to the Minister responsible for education for his assistance in enabling Newtownabbey community college to become established smoothly and for providing the necessary funding to meet the needs of pupils and staff of the former Hopefield and Rathcoole high schools when they came together in the newly opened Newtownabbey community college. Will the Minister assure us that, where rationalisation or amalgamation of schools has been agreed by education boards, parents and teachers, he will in future seek to provide the necessary funding for permanent accommodation to be in place at the time of the amalgamation, merger or rationalisation? Such an assurance helps teachers, parents and boards to reach agreement more easily when decisions involving school closures have to be made.
I was amazed recently when, despite the sound advice of principal teachers in Larne and the Carrickfergus area, the needs of a small number of parents resulted in discrimination against the vast majority of the population. The Minister proceeded to announce that there would be another new integrated post-primary schools in east Antrim. The existing schools require substantial capital investment. All existing secondary schools have a measure of voluntary integration at pupil and staff level, which has been developing steadily, slowly and effectively.
The decision to create a new integrated school in an area where a voluntary grammar school, two Roman Catholic maintained schools and a controlled secondary school have closed in the past 10 years, and where more than 600 secondary school places are already vacant, is irresponsible. The decision will threaten the stability of the remaining post-primary schools, whether they be grammar schools, controlled secondary schools or Roman Catholic maintained secondary schools.
The reality, which should not go unnoticed, is that the percentage of Roman Catholic children in the Carrickfergus area is 6.5 per cent. and in the Larne area the total maintained primary school population is 16 per cent. of the school population. So there simply are not enough children to produce an integrated secondary school.
Is the Minister determined to lower enrolment for a viable integrated school, and does the Department of Education expect area boards or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools to maintain the same standard? From where will the children be bussed to that new school? Is the Minister prepared to sacrifice the voluntary integration that has already occurred? Will he assure me that the established needs of existing post-primary schools in east Antrim will receive the capital funding they need before money is released for a new integrated post-primary school?
It may be of interest to the House to know, and the Minister should seriously note, how matters are developing. Just the other day, the Braidside integrated primary school in the Ballymena area advertised for a teacher to teach Roman Catholic religious education in an integrated school. I understood that there had been agreement in all the main Churches that there was to be a common religious education curriculum. I do not think that that will be well looked on in Roman Catholic maintained schools, where children would already be having their religious education.
When does the Minister intend to audit the cost to the education service of Northern Ireland of providing free transport beyond the nearest appropriate school? I believe that the Minister will be shocked at the escalating transport costs when he carries out such an audit.
I note that in part II the sum of £416,000 is authorised for expenditure by the Office of Electricity Regulation. In answer to a recent question, I was informed that the transitional relief scheme was introduced to give industry time to adjust to the application of cost-reflective pricing following privatisation, and that it will have served its purpose by the time it ends on 31 March 1996. There is only a year to go, and there is no hope of achieving that.
I must tell the Minister that consumers, whether they be domestic or industrial, are very worried about electricity prices in Northern Ireland and would like greater intervention by the regulator, so if there is not to be an extension of transitional relief to take account of the high costs of electricity in Northern Ireland, perhaps the regulator can find a way.
I urge the Minister to consider carefully and sympathetically the application being made by Nigen for a non-fossil fuel obligation tranche in respect of its energy-from-waste project for Belfast West. The project, when operational at the Belfast West plant, would provide better environmental solutions to the Northern Ireland problem of how best to deal with waste disposal. Approval would also obviate any need for a super-dump at Magheramorne in my constituency and could make possible a major environmental and recreational project for which millennium funding will be sought.
The Prime Minister's investment forum held in Belfast was a credit to all involved in the organisation and to all who participated. We have just lost a further 100 jobs in Larne in my constituency, and my constituents and I are keen to know whether there has been any positive sign that there has been, or is likely to be, additional inward investment as a result of that conference. We in Larne and in East Antrim would like to share in that, as no doubt would other areas of the Province.
Finally, I am sure that other Members present in the Chamber would welcome an explanation of schedule part I, Department of Economic Development, paragraph 4. A sum of £1,000 has been granted, but in the appropriations-in-aid column there is a figure representing an increase of £186,131,000. I should be pleased, as I am sure would others, to know what that has to do with the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I was disappointed by the Minister's introduction of the estimates. I thought that he might have discussed the new


economic position in which we might be involved with the advent of peace in Northern Ireland. He might have discussed not only the advent of peace being the absence of violence and therefore giving confidence for economic and commercial development, but the announcement of the various additional fundings that may, and hopefully will, be available for economic development in Northern Ireland; 300 million ecu for 1996, 1997 and 1998, the International Fund for Ireland, structural funds from the EEC in addition to those that already exist and the inward transfer of money from the security budget to other departmental budgets.
I should have thought that the debate was an opportunity to make a statement about the future economic development of Northern Ireland in that new context of peace and of substantial additional funding. It appears to me that Departments of Government, the Industrial Development Board and, to a lesser extent, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the tourist board, which are the primary job creators in Northern Ireland in the public sector, have no new plans whatsoever regarding that new dimension—that new dispensation. I find that not only surprising but very alarming, because there are about to be made available to us those very substantial fundings, which can be dissipated in short-term, poor projects or wisely invested and garnered to create long-term economic regeneration and more permanent job creation.
Tourism has already taken a distinct upward turn in the past six months. I continue to find it startling that the tourist board does not appear to have restructured its policy and agenda to take advantage of that. We need a regeneration of our tourist infrastructure and a renewal of facilities. Had the Minister done that, it would have been a useful contribution to the debate tonight, but my response to it would have been somewhat different. I would have asked, "Who will share in the economic regeneration?"
The history of the past 25, if not the past 70, years of administration shows that the area that I and others represent—south-east Ulster, roughly the local government districts of Banbridge, Down and Newry and Mourne—has suffered blatant economic discrimination. I wish to know whether the Government, at this very late stage, will take account of that.
When I make that statement, it is often said that I exaggerate the position. I do not begrudge the inward investment in Belfast, the Antrims and Derry, and I wish those people well in their new prosperity, but something more direct and positive must be done for an area that has endemic social and economic deprivation and endemic high unemployment, such as the parts of south-east Ulster that I have named.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that subject, because there is greater endemic unemployment in Belfast than in south-east Ulster. Does he accept that, in the latest figures for chairmen and directors, the director of Norbrooke Laboratories leads the list, with a salary of about £750,000 a year? Is that a reflection of poverty in the area?

Mr. McGrady: I do not know whether I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question, because it has confused me. The salary of the chairman of Norbrooke Laboratories is the pay and salary, exorbitant and disgraceful as it is. of one person, not of his employees in the town of Newry.

The area that I am referring to is rural, and when there is not sufficient concentration to allow one to see the consequences of unemployment and social deprivation, one tends to think that they do not exist. However, the problems are simply scattered. The numbers are there, the people are there and the suffering is there.
I shall give an example of what has happened in my constituency. I welcome the recent announcements about inward investment, and I hope that those who will benefit from that investment will have long, successful and happy lives. In 1989-90, less than 1.5 per cent. of the total number of potential investors who visited Northern Ireland, visited south-east Ulster. In 1991, the figure was less than 1.5 per cent. and in 1991-92 it was less than 1 per cent. Under the aegis of the IDB or the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the entire area received less than 1 per cent. of visits from inward investors. The last figure that I have is for 1992–93, when there was an "enormous improvement" of 3 per cent. of visits by inward investors for the whole of south-east Ulster. To me, that represents deprivation.
The Industrial Development Board and the Department of Economic Development tell me constantly that they are striving to correct that situation. In his opening remarks tonight, the Minister referred to the sale of industrial development sites. However, no such sites have been provided in the district town of Downpatrick, in spite of much dithering in the past four or five years. According to an advertisement that I saw a few weeks ago, industrial sites are being sold in Newcastle, Ballynahinch, Kilkeel, Warrenpoint and Downpatrick. How can we have economic development if we are losing all the areas that have been designated for that development?
According to the latest information that I have received, the Department of Economic Development and the planning division are playing ping pong with the issue. They cannot sit around the table and work out which industrial sites should be allocated for inward investment.
The Department of Economic Development and the IDB say that they cannot bring investors to the area that I represent because we are too far away from the ports. It is 10 miles from the northern part of my constituency to the centre of Belfast, the biggest port—apart from Larne—in Ireland. There is also a port at Warrenpoint in the south. So that excuse is null and void.
Another excuse that I am given is a valid one. I am told that the road structure is such that it would not encourage inward investors to consider investing in my area. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), who has just made his speech, spoke about completing work on dual carriageways and building new roads in his constituency. He should be thankful that there are dual carriageways in his constituency. We hardly have one single carriageway that is capable of carrying an articulated truck. How can we attract inward investment to areas of deprivation unless we have a programme of infrastructure development to go with it?
I refer specifically to the A7 from Belfast to the district town of Downpatrick and the B8 from there to the port of Warrenpoint. Not one pound of capital moneys has been spent on new road infrastructure in the entire area to which I have referred in the past 14 years. The same was true for many years before that. That is another sign of the lack of commitment on the part of Governments and agencies to the area that I represent.


The fishing industry is concentrated in my area, and we all know what is happening to that. Various European Community regulations, the Hague preference, the total allowable catch and the days at sea provision are depressing the fishing industry and are affecting not only the fishermen but the food producers who are dependent on the fish harvest.
Kilkeel in my constituency is the biggest fishing town in Northern Ireland, but the fishermen cannot get in and out of the harbour because the Northern Ireland Harbour Authority will not provide a groyne to keep the boats safe. I welcome the expenditure of £6 million on another part of Northern Ireland for pleasure purposes, but I think that £3 million could be provided to establish a groyne for the economic fishing base in the harbour and the port of Kilkeel.
That development has not taken place because the Government will not finance the Northern Ireland Harbour Authority to carry out that work. The authority proposes to levy the fishermen to pay for the project, but their income is running down rapidly and they cannot afford to pay. I witnessed a good fishing boat being burnt on a beach in County Down because the owners could no longer afford to run it. That is the extent of the deprivation in that community.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he will recall that when the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs visited Kilkeel—the hon. Gentleman organised that visit, as the local Member—Committee members were appalled to learn that, because of the difficulties at the harbour, the fishermen were losing more than £200,000 in revenue each year.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with what he says, but in fact the losses are much greater than that if the fishermen are prevented from going to sea for weeks on end.
I see that you are watching the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as my time is running out, so I shall conclude my remarks. We can see the same pattern of non-funding in other areas. It was announced last week that some £63 million will be spent on school rehabilitation programmes, but not a penny will go to my entire area£except the money which the Minister announced tonight for the rehabilitation of a Kilkeel school which suffered an arson attack.
Because of the time constraints, I cannot comment in detail about hospitals and the provision of social services. New hospitals have been built in Antrim, Moyle, Derry, Belfast and Coleraine, yet the hospitals which serve my area have been in a queue for funding for 30 years. They have not yet received a penny, in spite of many promises. That pattern of non-funding cannot be denied. I would supply other evidence of lack of funding, but time does not permit me to do so.
The people of my area have strived to live together and we have worked hard. We have cast out from our community the men of violence and those who espouse the cause of violence for political purposes. We have accepted, by and large—there are always hiccups in every community—the diversity of political opinion and religious belief, and we have lived together. If we had

blown one another apart, money would be flowing into the area, but because we have lived together like ordinary, decent people, supported one another and kept out the men of violence, we are ignored and neglected.
I will make one final request of the Minister and abandon the rest of what I had hoped to say. Will he take a message back to the Departments of the Northern Ireland Office–because he has overall charge of finance and personnel–and ask them to set up a task force for economic regeneration similar to the ones that are set up when jobs are lost in other areas? Our area never had the jobs in the first place. We would love to be facing the loss of 100 jobs; we do not have 100 jobs to lose. We want a fair share of the cake and of the development and the funding that will accompany the new era of peace and economic development. If the Minister can provide that, we shall be able to fulfil our commitment to provide jobs, reasonable wages and an adequate standard of living for the people of Down and south-east Ulster.

Rev. William McCrea: I can understand much of the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) about the lack of industrial investment and of Government finance in his area. If the hon. Gentleman believes that he has problems, he had better listen to me because there are plenty in the constituency which I have had the honour of representing in this place for the past 12 years.
I shall develop some of the important themes on which hon. Members have already touched. The vote on the Department of Economic Development certainly involves matters that must be considered and attended to.
The first vote concerns the Department of Agriculture. I come from and represent not only a farming home but a farming constituency. The farming community has been the backbone of Ulster's economy and prosperity over the years. It has been through rather difficult times and still faces grave difficulties—for example, grave concern has been expressed to me recently on behalf of pig farmers, especially those with farms of smaller unit size, about the viability of their units in future.
The matter has been raised in Europe. The European Commissioner has money to assist pig farmers, but I am told that he has stated that they must depend on market forces. I have heard that before. Having said that farmers must depend on market forces and take their place at the whim of the market, in the next breath the Commissioner tells us that those same farmers are not permitted to buy cereals on the world market, but must buy dearer cereals from Europe. Farmers in the Province find those cereal prices exorbitant and colossal, and they add to the burden placed on the agricultural sector of our community.
The same vote applies to the fishing industry. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have received numerous representations on behalf of the fishing industry which is under threat, particularly from the recent decision taken in the House and another place concerning the Spanish fleet.
As that decision was taken in Europe, will the Minister assure the House tonight that the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Department of Agriculture will seek to gain extra money from Europe to permit appropriate decommissioning of fishing vessels without taking money out of the fishing budget? I am led to


believe that there is a limited budget and that the money that should go into the fishing industry will be used for schemes such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down–the harbour in Kilkeel. That is essential money which should be provided.
The fishermen face one of the greatest challenges they have ever faced. They have to cope with depleting stocks and financial problems as they try to keep their families. It is disgraceful and despicable that inadequate provision is made for the Kilkeel fishermen and the harbours. I join the hon. Member for South Down in asking the Minister to provide that money.
It is appropriate to say that the present Minister with responsibility for agriculture is one of the first Ministers to have gone to Europe to fight for the position of farmers in Northern Ireland; it must be placed on record that that is appreciated. It would be remiss of me to say that there is a need for assistance but no representations are being made; the noble Lady certainly fights our corner. I hope she knows that right hon. and hon. Members will back her if she continues to fight for appropriate finances to meet the needs of the fishing industry, bearing in mind the serious challenges that it faces.
Under the same agricultural budget, I should mention the changes that have been recommended at Loughery agricultural college, in my constituency. I attended a deputation to the Minister but, unfortunately, it seems that the decision has been taken. I genuinely feel that that decision is detrimental to the interest of the Cookstown area, which has the second highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. The decision is regarded as a blow not only to teaching staff but to ancillary staff and local services. Many small businesses relied on Loughery agricultural college and its vibrant college campus as a means of income.
Moving on to the Department of Economic Development, I have listened to much of the talk about the peace dividend. There seems to be plenty of verbiage and witty talk and it all sounds good. It is wonderful to hear so many wonderful promises. If I believed in all the amounts of money that are supposed to be rolling into Ulster, I would not know what road to keep off, as so many tonnes of pounds and punts would be arriving—perhaps we will not get punts; they are getting them in rather than giving them out, but there would be dollars and all the rest coming in because of the so-called peace dividend.
Who will enjoy this so-called new prosperity? I have already said that I understand the fears and frustrations of the hon. Member for South Down, but, in some ways, he has to thank his own party leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for the current position. When the hon. Gentleman goes to America, although he leads a particular party, he is very good at mentioning a certain part of Foyle, but he is not so helpful or good at assisting his colleagues when it comes to investment. We have listened to plenty of media coverage about how many jobs are coming from America to the Province, especially through the efforts of the hon. Member for Foyle. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Down should tap his hon. Friend on the shoulder and tell him not be so selfish.

Mr. McGrady: I should like to endorse the hon. Gentleman's magnificent tribute to the leader of my party for his great endeavours in raising funds in America and spearheading the Trojan fund in Europe. He should take

on board the point that these funds are paid through Government Departments and the International Fund for Ireland and are not at the personal disposal of any individual Member of Parliament.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps he should wait for the rest of the comments before he starts thanking and congratulating his hon. Friend. After all these trips to America, we are still told by the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), representing Her Majesty's Opposition, about the vast and terrible unemployment of what he called the Derry area; it is actually Londonderry. Perhaps the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman needs some extra education about the part of the country he is in.
The hon. Member for Foyle has been promising plenty, but it is all promises. In actual fact, there has been little substance. Earlier in the debate, we discussed the difference between substance and the rest, but here we are told that the hon. Member for Foyle has brought in a certain number of jobs. Strabane is in the same constituency. The Bogside area of Londonderry would have a chance of getting some benefit, but Strabane has little of the prosperity from America or anywhere else, never mind places as far down the country as South Down, where there are problems that the hon. Member for South Down needs to talk over with his hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.
In the debate in July 1994 on economic development, I raised a matter concerning Omagh. I received a letter from the Minister after the debate pointing out that IBB had recently acquired a 26-acre site at Doogary. When will a factory be completed on the site, and when is it hoped that its occupant will commence operations, thus giving gainful employment to local people?
What steps is the Department of Economic Development taking to enhance employment in the Cookstown area? I attended a meeting with the divisional planning officer and one of my constituents just over a week ago, requesting the development of land near Killymoon. Surely the Government must show an active interest in getting industrial development into the area. How many major firms have shown an interest in moving into that region of high unemployment?
Education standards in the Cookstown area are among the highest in the Province. Young people are able, ready and willing to rise to the challenge, but the town desperately needs hope because of its high unemployment. The Castlederg area, for instance, continues to worry me. Previous Ministers spoke in glowing terms about new possibilities for the area; a special report was commissioned, and civil servants were deputed to examine the area's needs. My constituents, however, want not promises but action.
What has happened since we last discussed these matters? What industrial developments have taken place in Omagh, Cookstown and Castlederg? The Government must bear some responsibility for the sense of hopelessness felt by a number of people. Instead of adding to employment, the Government have caused the closure of Omagh's maternity unit, thus removing jobs from the area. They have not given the signal that they are backing industrial investment and development in the area and ensuring that essential services are in place. The maternity


unit was excellent, but the Government have closed it. They have also run down in-patient mental health institutional treatment by cutting staff numbers.
Since our last debate, the Department has decided to remove Cookstown's rates office. Rather than assisting employment in the area, it has moved civil servants away from an unemployment black spot. Councillor William Larmour and I had a meeting with the senior officer, Mr. Gallagher, who expressed grave concern; but this appears to be Government policy.
We made a suggestion at that time, because we had heard that housing benefit administration was being centralised. There is excellent office accommodation in Cookstown, which will now be left empty; that could have been used. Geographically, Cookstown is the centre of the Province, so such action could not have been described as isolationist. After I raised the matter, however, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), wrote me a letter including the following statement:
As for Housing Benefit, Mr. Gallagher assures me that Cookstown was, indeed, one of the locations considered for the proposed centralised office. However"—
the first part always cheers one up, but the next bit tramps one down into the ground—
a detailed assessment of the pros and cons of siting in a provincial town, rather than Belfast, has concluded that Belfast offered more advantages, especially in terms of availability of staff with Housing Benefit experience, proximity to the main body of claimants in the greater Belfast area, communication and greater flexibility in the efficient management and use of staff.
I am told on the highest authority that there is no reason why the housing benefit office could not be centralised in the accommodation in Cookstown, which has just been upgraded. It seems, however, that it must be in Belfast. When it suits the Government, they will remove civil servants from Belfast and send them to Londonderry; if they can move them as far from Belfast as that, why can they not move them to excellent accommodation in Cookstown, in the centre of the Province?
The Government's action gives the wrong signal to incoming industrialists. If they are not interested in retaining services—and civil servants—in the area, what encouragement does that give to those who look for Government commitment? What have the Government kept in that area? Instead of showing commitment by introducing jobs, they are withdrawing them. That does not give the green light for prosperity; it gives the red light to industrialists, telling them to keep away.
That is a serious mistake by the Government. I appeal to the Minister of State to ask his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look afresh at the centralisation of housing benefit arrangements: excellent accommodation is available for staff to walk into. The Government tell us how sad they are that the Cookstown area has the second highest unemployment rate in the Province, but they are taking jobs away and adding to its problems.
I have mentioned Castlederg. It was announced yesterday that Derg Valley hospital was to be closed. Again, rather than offering encouragement to an area with employment problems, the Government offer hopelessness. The hospital serves elderly people who provided the backbone in the creation of the health service, bringing prosperity to the Province: they paid

their taxes and national insurance, and were told that the state would look after them in the later days of their lives. Now state provision in Castlederg has been withdrawn from elderly people, and is being handed over to the voluntary or the private sector.
I have no objection to the voluntary sector, which should be encouraged to become vibrant; nor do I object to the private sector. I do not believe, however, that the Government have the right to withdraw from their responsibility to look after the old and the sick. Again, the Government commissioned special reports on Castlederg's needs; I wonder what they cost. In the end, rather than sending a message that they were backing the hospital and those who were willing to put their money where their mouth was, the Government withdrew the services that it provided.
Economic development and the Bann are connected issues. As has been said, we need an infrastructure programme. We need roads. I understand the feelings of the hon. Member for South Down, who sees motorways, dual carriageways and a mass of lit-up roundabouts in other parts of the Province. All that is wonderful; perhaps part of the rest of the Province can enjoy some of it, too. Perhaps we can ensure that the industries that come to Mid-Ulster can get their goods to the ports quickly.
Remember, Cookstown is a central part of the Province. There is a bottleneck in Cookstown because it needs a bypass. Magherafelt needs a bypass. Why is the money that is rolling in not used to remove the bottlenecks in Magherafelt, Cookstown and Omagh, allowing the industries that come out to the west of the Bann to get their goods to the ports as quickly as possible? The Omagh area badly needs stage 3 of the through-pass, yet I am told that it is not on the priority list.
I appreciate the progress that has been made in stages 1 and 2, but without stage 3 it is ineffective. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) used his influence in another place to have the road recognised as a trans-European highway. I mentioned that in the previous debate and I shall keep mentioning it. It is lovely to get the trans-European highway. It sounds good, but it must be able to carry the vehicles. It must be capable of encouraging industries to come into the area. Without stage 3 in Omagh, the commercial and agricultural life of the Tyrone county town will be strangled.
Another by-product of not having that through-pass is that land earmarked on the 2002 plan cannot be developed. It is landlocked. Without the development of the third stage of the through-pass, it will continue to be landlocked. House prices are unacceptably high in Omagh town. I urge the Minister to treat the matter with urgency and seriousness and to place stage 3 on the Department's priority list so that work can commence at the completion of stage 2. It is vital that Cookstown gets a bypass and that it follows on to the bypass in Magherafelt. A small area of the road network needs help to assist the industrial development of our area.
I must press one other matter, which is outside my particular area, but it does follow on. There is an excellent road from Londonderry to Castledawson roundabout and on to Toome. Unfortunately, there is a bottleneck at Toomebridge. A dual carriageway is needed from Toomebridge to the M2. I genuinely believe that that


would be of great assistance. If all this money means anything, let it be put into something productive, which would help the industrial development of our community.
In Omagh recently, Queen's university announced that it would operate a faculty unit in the technology centre. I urge the Minister earnestly to consider allowing the Department of Education to take over the former Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. It has 3,000 sq m of excellent buildings, which have recently been refurbished to a high standard. It is an historic building. It is situated in a mature campus ground of more than 300 acres, with student accommodation, recreation halls, outdoor sports facilities and other excellent amenities. It is sitting there for the university to take up. Surely it should be considered as a campus site at a European level. That would be a great advancement educationally and economically for the western area.
My constituents face many problems. I believe that it is vital that the House gives due consideration to them. We must ensure that there is less rigid planning in the countryside. The farming community is not able to allow its sons and daughters to build in the countryside, and we need to consider that.
Pre-school nursery education has been mentioned. There is a tremendous lack of it within the community.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) mentioned the extra funds that were allocated between the maintained and the controlled sector.
We were told that we had to put up Irish signs so that people could read in Irish as well as English. I read something very interesting in the paper today. I read that this person, Adams, the Sinn Fein president, went to the Arran Islands at the weekend. The article says:
He opened his address to the crowded hall in Irish but then, admitting that his knowledge of the first tongue wasn't the best, switched to English.
And he has the audacity and the front, which the Government drank hook, line and sinker, to say that we should spend public money, at a time of great restriction, and put up Irish signs, which fewer than about 3 per cent. of the people can read. Even Adams himself, who is paraded all around America as the great hero, cannot read Irish. He started his speech in Irish and then had to apologise that he knew nothing about it. That is not the only thing that he knows nothing about.
There is a great need for expenditure in the Province. My constituency needs it, as do other hon. Members' constituencies. I am not saying that mine should get more than others, but I do believe that, in the past, my constituency has not had its fair share. I believe that we have a right to demand that it does.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I hesitate to talk about the roads and new industry that I have in my constituency. Perhaps I should mention them briefly, as time is going on.
The policy on the sale of Housing Executive houses is good; people like to own their own homes. But it has created a difficulty, as the houses that are sold are beside Housing Executive houses that have not been sold. Unfortunately, the Housing Executive does not keep the area in a good condition. That, unfortunately, means that people who have bought their own homes live in a "through-other" area, as we say in Northern Ireland and

cannot sell their homes. That is extremely unfair on those house owners. It is about time that the Housing Executive got its act together and did something about that.
The Housing Executive should also look at some of the objectionable neighbours that it puts into its houses. Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that. Unfortunately, we have in Northern Ireland what are known as "druggies" houses, where people dispense drugs. The people who live in them fortify their houses in such a way that, if they are suspected of having drugs and the police arrive, by the time the police get into the house the drugs have been burnt–in a fire that is always burning, both winter and summer.
It is also known that certain flats contain animals that are not supposed to be kept. We know of flats in which two large rottweilers are kept in the one flat, simply to keep out the law, if it happened to come along. It is time that the Housing Executive, the police and the Northern Ireland Office got together to see whether some way can be found to sort out that problem, because it is very serious in certain areas.
A more mundane but no less important matter is that the coal advisory service is changing, because of the privatisation of British Coal. How will the solid fuel boilers and flues and so on be looked after? I hope that that matter will be looked at quickly and seriously.
Northern Ireland still has giro drops, which do not seem to be understood in some circles, and they must be investigated. If legislation is required, it should be introduced. I would accept a letter from the Minister, as well as a few remarks in reply at the end of the debate. Perhaps he could have a look at why grants are processed so slowly. I think that it takes about 12 months to get a Housing Executive grant.
A Bill relating to pensions is currently in the House of Lords. Part of that Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland and I assume that the legislation will be brought in by order. Perhaps the Minister will let me know whether that is so. An important aspect of that Bill is how trustees are selected to represent pensioners. I should like the legislation changed so that pensioners can democratically elect their trustee rather than have one appointed.
In the past I have had some knowledge of water privatisation, and I am rather concerned that it is still being visualised for Northern Ireland. Of course, there may be a change of Government and it may fall by the wayside. I am quite sure that, if the Opposition become the Government, they will not privatise. Northern Ireland has an excellent water system. Belfast water commissioners were renowned throughout the world and, usually, the operation was run by local councillors. That was an excellent idea and it would be a great pity if the system were changed. We, of course, oppose the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland.
The Department of the Environment vote 1 deals with roads. I support the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) to complete the dual carriageway to Lame. I was rather afraid to mention that, because colleagues have different views on roads in Northern Ireland. I should certainly like to see the dual carriageway finished. Perhaps I could make a local plea for the A26 between Antrim and Ballymena.
I was interested in a letter from the Minister with responsibility for the environment in Northern Ireland to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr.


Ross). It referred to EC funding for unadopted roads. I have several times mentioned such roads in the House and I hope that they are being looked at, because the issue needs to be sorted out. I hesitate to get into mundane matters such as those involving travellers and gipsies camping on lay-bys. However, in a year in which the resource element to councils has been cut, it is not right to have 40 or 50 caravans parking on a DoE lay-by and then leaving. I estimate that the cost of clearing up and putting right the damage to the site would probably be about £600, and that does not include farmers' fencing and so on that was badly damaged and burned. It is time that that was examined and perhaps an effort made to make sure that only those with a legitimate reason for parking for a short time are looked after.
I spoke about councils. Ratepayers are complaining because, no matter what percentage the councils put on the rate, the regional portion is always much greater. For instance, if the council adds 3 per cent., the regional rate is generally about 9 per cent. and is portrayed as 6 per cent. Councillors have to carry the can for that 6 per cent. when they put on only 3 per cent. That is most unfair to councillors, most of whom do a good job with what they have.
I am pleased at the number of new industries that have come to my area. I congratulate the Industrial Development Board on its good work along those lines. I hope that difficulties that have been mentioned in the newspapers about other projects are overcome and that new industries will come to the Province as quickly as possible.
I am a bit concerned about vote 2 of the Department of Economic Development, because the tourist grants, to which we are now paying much attention, seem to be causing difficulty. I had a couple of cases in which the grants seemed to take a long time to come through. There seems to be an inclination to give grants for hotels and other projects coming into Northern Ireland rather than to the entrepreneurs in the Province who are trying to start up their own hotels and the like.
In the context of the privatisation of Belfast international airport, we are opposed to the privatisation of air traffic control. There was a suggestion to that effect, although I think that the idea has been deferred. We support those in the rest of the United Kingdom who are totally opposed to the privatisation of the air traffic control system. It is essential to have confidence in those systems, and they should remain as they are.
I have a criticism related to tourism which involves an airport outside Northern Ireland. I hope that I am not ruled out of order for mentioning it. We have an excellent new airline which started last week and uses Stansted airport. I had the unfortunate experience of sitting for hours in a plane on an apron at Stansted because it appeared that the proper de-icing equipment, or enough of it, was not available. There certainly did not seem to be enough snow clearing equipment and there was only I in of snow on the runway. Perhaps the Minister would speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that.

Sir John Wheeler: I may be responsible for what happens to every blade of grass in Northern Ireland, but I

am not responsible for Stansted airport. However, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Mr. Forsythe: I thank the Minister for that. The spirit of co-operation would be helped if we had more tourists coming through Stansted to Northern Ireland.
I had intended to make a few comments about the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, but I shall restrict them. One of them is about family credit, which does not seem to be taken up because of the large amount of paperwork involved. People who send in pay slips, as they are supposed to do, find that they either get lost, are out of date or are the wrong ones. They do the same thing again. I know people who, even though they need the money, stop trying to get it. If the benefit is there, it is only right that people who deserve to receive it should do so. The fact that it may be difficult for some people should be considered.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) wants to discuss health matters. It has been reported to me that, in certain parts of Northern Ireland, people over 75 years of age are being directed to geriatric-type hospitals instead of to normal hospitals. Apparently, those people do not have much going for them. I am sure that the Minister will draw attention to that.
The National Playing Fields Association is issuing information on a multi-game wall where one plays all sorts of games. If one has a small area, one can put up such a wall and kick a ball against it, or play basketball and cricket. That is a good idea. If there is no room for a proper sports ground, erecting such a wall should be considered. I remember as a boy kicking a ball against a wall. It did me no harm. I recommend that to the Minister.

9 pm

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am conscious of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on Northern Irish colleagues' time allocation in this debate, so I shall be brief.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) concentrated on agriculture for a large part of his speech. The Minister mentioned that the Government are seeking to spend only £1,000 extra in the agriculture sector.
Within the past couple of months, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has taken evidence in public from the Ulster Farmers Union and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. One point emerged: the importance of agricultural employment in Northern Ireland.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, that has been a backbone of Northern Ireland's economy. There has been a drop in employment in that sector. Although that drop is mirrored throughout Europe, it is considerable. For instance, in the early 1970s, 10 per cent. of civil employment was due to agriculture; now it is 6.4 per cent.
Agriculture is still a considerable source of employment, but the position could still be better. When we were taking evidence in public from the Department of Agriculture in Northern ireland, one of the points I asked about was the capacity for developing the principle of co-operation in farming.


There are a large number of one-person or two-person farms in Northern Ireland, so surely the capacity is there to bring the farming communities back together in co-operative ventures. They may have all sorts of names and undertake all sorts of activities in various aspects of farming, but the potential is to develop that principle of co-operation. At one point, it was mentioned that the Northern Ireland farming community seemed to be apprehensive about co-operative ventures, but other organisations in the farming community did not accept that.
I also asked whether co-operation was valued as a principle by DANI. It is a hard world. Commitment to a particular principle is a measure of how much of DANI's allocation for its activities has been devoted to developing the principle of co-operation in the farming community.
The answer I received was that £300,000 per year was allocated for the development of co-operative ventures in the farming community. That is not a lot. I should like the Minister to take on board the view that, if co-operation can improve efficiency—that is what the modern world is all about—I for one would like greater priority given to encouraging co-operative ventures in Northern Ireland.
I have picked up some concerns in relation to the Department of Economic Development. Some of them might just be perceptions, as is often the case in Northern Ireland, but perceptions must be dealt with.
We are all in favour of inward investment. We have to listen only to our colleagues from Northern Ireland to see how much that is needed, but a feeling exists that, in the drive and enthusiasm to encourage such investment, somehow the indigenous companies are being left out on a limb and ignored. That is not being done in a deliberate or culpable way, but those companies are being left to wither on the vine.
All hon. Members should agree that, if an indigenous company is operating and a competitor comes in that is supported by the public purse, that surely gives the competitor an unfair advantage over the indigenous company. We all should be in favour of, and should encourage, inward investment, but we should be careful to ensure that we do not endanger the secure basis of the indigenous companies in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned Kilkeel fishing village. In an intervention on my hon. Friend, I mentioned that the Kilkeel fleet was tied up because of the harbour entrance, and that more than —200,000 would be lost to the local economy. I am not sure whether I said £200,000 a year, but the briefing is clear that the loss would be £200,000 a week. Kilkeel loses a massive amount of money per week because of that.
It was extremely generous of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Down in mentioning it. Generous gestures can sometimes be thin on the ground in Northern Ireland, because, obviously, rivalry exists between constituency Members of Parliament. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he mentioned that.
The position at Kilkeel impressed me greatly. Here were successful people and who were willing to work, to get on with it and, through their own efforts, to get on in the world and to contribute to the Province, yet the harbour at Kilkeel left a lot to be desired.
I have another document on port spending by the Department of the Environment. I am not complaining about any expenditure, because clearly more expenditure is required. I saw what was happening at Kilkeel and then saw the spending of the port section of the Department of the Environment on the royal harbour at Donaghadee and on Newry harbour, and the assistance to Moyle district council for ports at Rathlin and Ballycastle harbours and elsewhere.
Although Kilkeel is certainly pressing its own case, and rightly so, I have still not received a satisfactory answer as to why it has been left. In view of the all-party support for Kilkeel, I should like to hear from the Minister at some point how Kilkeel harbour is regarded by the Government.
I am conscious of the lack of time available to Northern Irish colleagues on the Floor of the House, so I conclude my remarks at this point.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and think that the Minister will confirm that I, too, feel strongly that the promotion of home-based industry is best. Home-based industries are tied to the place, and do not pick up their belongings and leave when the going gets difficult. In that context, I support what the hon. Gentleman said. Some might offer reasons why Portavogie and Kilkeel, as fishing ports, have not been properly looked after.
Roads have been mentioned, and I could spend some time talking about a generous letter I received from the Minister responsible since I raised the matter of traffic flow in Belfast. In his letter, he tells me that the inner Belfast box is now scheduled to open in 1999, providing funds are available. It has been going on since the early 1970s and is not yet completed. We are talking about the capital of Northern Ireland, with the emphasis in the Great Victoria street area on attracting people with an outstanding hotel complex at the Europa, while, a little way down the road, there is land that has been vacant for years.
Vote 2 deals with the Department of Education, and I shall refer to a particular constituency issue. It has been brought to my attention that the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, which is headquartered in my constituency, is to be reorganised. Will the Minister tell me now, or later in writing, what will be the duties of the four sub-committees and the duty of the main committee?
It seems that someone has been charged with reorganising the Sports Council on the grounds that it was in a mess, although I had not heard that description of it hitherto. The suggestion that it has to work in a particular way or there would be no funding especially concerns me, because it was made in the context of the Special Olympics. Those who know the work that people such as Evelyn Greer have done with Mencap over the years will understand my concern.
Will the Minister assure us that young people will he encouraged to take part in the Special Olympics, and perhaps explain why there has been a breakdown in communications? It seems that people with disabilities in Northern Ireland prefer to take part in the wider United Kingdom games.


I refer now to the Department of Health and Social Services, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said, is my more familiar subject of interest.
I have several concerns about vote 1. I understand, for example, that money from the national lottery intended for community purposes is to be held and distributed by NICVA, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Authorities. What safeguards are in place to ensure that small charities will get their fair share, and that members of NICVA do not favour their pet projects? I ask that deliberately because I know that there have been difficulties in the past. If funds are now being channelled through NICVA, I want a clear understanding that distribution will be equitable.
In the past year, and indeed before, there has been much discussion in the House about changes in the health service and the increase in the number of GP fundholders. It was argued that they would become strong players in the purchasing of services, but I wonder how far the concept has spread in Northern Ireland. Is there any significant evidence that it is spreading?
A few weeks ago, I was invited to visit a practice in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). It was an inner-city practice, where the doctors were completely sold on the concept of fundholding.
They made bold to claim that in their practice, they had no real waiting lists. They said that they had been able to break the stranglehold that some consultants had on the choice of patients. On occasions, they had made choices not simply on clinical grounds, but on other grounds.
I was fascinated to discover this, because one of the arguments propounded in the House is that fundholding does not work in inner cities. The doctors in this practice, in an inner-city area of deprivation which crosses the community, asked me to put on record their experience of fundholding.
From the answers to my parliamentary question of 2 March, I see that trauma and orthopaedic operations in the Musgrave Park hospital showed a marked decrease of 300 cases between 1992 and 1993. However, between 1993 and 1994, there was a dramatic increase of more than 400 cases.
Is there a reason for the fluctuations? Is it the heralded power of the GP fundholders, or does the increase reflect the hospital's ability to attract patients from elsewhere in Northern Ireland—and even, because of the skills of the staff there, from other parts of the United Kingdom? Is the hospital dealing with matter efficiently enough to bring down the waiting list in orthopaedics?
Still on vote 1, can the Minister say whether the Causeway hospital at Coleraine will be affected by the finances set aside for capital expenditure? There is some concern that the demands of Belfast trust hospitals will have an adverse impact on the Causeway development. A laboratory site has been provided. I would not like to think that there would be no further development for some years while capital funding was diverted to Belfast because the Causeway hospital was in the queue much earlier.
I have two concerns about vote 4. The first is a mobility allowance for under-fives. I appreciate that this is an aspect of the social security system in Great Britain. It is

fascinating that, when I send a letter on social security policy to the Social Security Department here—I normally send a copy to the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland—I get a note from the Great Britain Department to the effect that this is a matter for the Northern Ireland Department. The Department passes the shuttlecock over. I therefore have no hesitation in raising the matter in a Northern Ireland appropriation debate.
Many in the House may not be aware of the Government's bizarre rule that disabled children under five are not entitled to the mobility allowance available to those over five years of age. The argument has been that children under five cannot get the allowance because, until they are over five, one cannot be sure whether they will walk.
Parents with disabled children under five have enough problems to cope with, without being denied financial support, especially when it is denied because, according to the Government, it cannot be proved before that age whether a child will walk. I urge the Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, if it is a matter for that Department, to take the lead and to cease discrimination on such petty grounds. The inability to walk is not set forth as the only ground for mobility allowance.
My second point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe)—the time taken before people receive housing grants and social security payments. Often some time elapses before people come before a tribunal. They then go through the agonising period of wondering what will happen. There is also a tendency not to look ahead during the review process.
Recently, a constituent went to cash his cheque. He knew that his book was finished, but he then discovered that it could not be renewed, and that instead, he would be paid by giro until he went again before a medical assessment board. The man was fair-aged. The law of averages says that, far from improving over the age of 70, people are inclined to go downhill.
I could not understand why the administration had not booked him in earlier for that medical review, so I raised the issue with the Department. The review is not to take place until at least the end of March, yet the man has not received his cheques for January and February.
We all know that, after a tribunal or a medical review, it takes time to write up the notes and for those notes to get back to the administrative executive. Indeed, the internal postal system is even worse than the postal system from which at times we suffer in Westminster. Meanwhile, people are left high and dry without their proper benefits. It is not enough to say that they will be paid in due course, for people on low incomes have to pay their bills promptly. Only large businesses can afford not to pay bills on time. The ordinary person has to pay the bill, or there will be a row. Will attention be given to that matter?
Before I sum up, I have one concern over vote 5, which involves the costs of funerals. The Minister may be aware of the increasing costs of burial, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout Great Britain. I question whether the available grant covers the cost of a decent funeral. I hope that we shall not return to the pauper's burial.

Mr. McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the circumstances of burial in Northern Ireland are quite


different from those in England and Wales, and that, potentially under the new rules, burials will be more expensive? Around 84 per cent. of funerals in Northern Ireland are interments, and only 14 per cent. are cremations. There are only two crematoria in Northern Ireland, so long distances have to be travelled and much expense incurred by many people. There is an additional problem in the north.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the hon. Member's intervention and thank him for it, as it was perhaps more helpful than my intervention in his speech. Although I am arguing about the Northern Ireland appropriation order, increasing costs of burial also affect people in the nation as a whole. I certainly concur, however, that there are added expenses in Northern Ireland.
On a more general note, I welcome the publication of the chief medical officer's report. In that document, she highlights areas of concern, and I shall comment on two of them.
It is alarming that 20 per cent. of patients fail to keep their hospital out-patient appointments, which incurs a subsequent loss in the Departments. Is there a communication problem? Are the patients not aware of their appointments? I know that patients are sometimes told of their appointments a long time in advance, but I wonder whether there is a chance that, just as for in-patients, people get their appointments at the last minute and that they are out on business on the day that they are supposed to report to hospital.
Could it be, however, that many out-patients arrive on time for their appointments but get fed up and go home when the department is running an hour or more behind schedule? Despite improvements in the system, I have faced that scenario myself. Certainly, the inability to connect a patient with his or her clinic is a substantial waste of health service resources. What efforts have been made to find out why that is happening, and to sort the problem out?
Also in the chief medical officer's report, there is evidence that asthma is the main cause of ill health in children and young people. The Minister will be aware that air pollution is considered a major contributory factor in asthma, which is one of the fastest growing diseases in children. Will the Minister ensure that finance is set aside and research encouraged so that the causes of the increases are identified and eradicated? It is not good enough to say that the cause of asthma is unknown and that there are many exacerbating factors in the environment. We need more detailed research.

Mr. Spellar: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate, which has been wide-ranging and has covered many issues. As I said in my opening speech, one of the opportunities that the peace process has created has been a move towards the normalisation of political life and issues in Northern Ireland, allowing us to debate issues of common concern which relate in many ways to Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales and England, too.
Many of the themes which have arisen in the debate have been familiar to Members from other areas of the country. As we have repeated several times, including in the debate earlier today, we support the Government's

efforts in the peace process, but on the economic and social issues we are as divided from them in Northern Ireland as elsewhere.
The debate, which unfortunately has been short, has highlighted several such issues. Indeed, when I was listening to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) talking about objectionable neighbours, drug addicts, giro drops and travellers, I thought that he could have been any Member of Parliament from the midlands conurbation, all of whom are facing similar problems to an equal or even a greater degree.
All of us, especially in urban areas, face such problems, which are common throughout western society. We need to try to achieve practical and realistic solutions to them all and to ensure that, especially in cases such as those that the hon. Gentleman described, the broad majority of the population are protected from an offensive and objectionable minority.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South would be well served if he considered the action taken by several midlands councils on precisely the sort of common nuisances that he described–action which has often been tough and effective. He may have read reports in the papers recently about Coventry council taking to court some individuals who were causing havoc on council estates and getting them barred from those estates.
The hon. Gentleman may also have read that, when individuals who have been using their premises for drug dealing are convicted, that is treated as a breach of their tenancy agreement and eviction proceedings are taken against them. That is greatly welcomed by the vast majority of residents on an estate, and especially by parents who are concerned that their children may be dragged into a life of drug use, which we know leads quickly to a life of crime. Lessons learned in other areas could well be applied throughout the country to reduce such problems and keep them in hand before they move way out of control.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed surprise that people over 75 are being referred to geriatric hospitals rather than ordinary hospitals. That causes concern and fear in my constituency, too. I have had correspondence from pensioners who are approaching the age of 75 but who are in full possession of their mental and physical faculties and who are terrified at the prospect that, if they have an accident or fall prey to an illness, they may be shunted off to a geriatric hospital and, as they would see it, written off, as people who have finished their useful life. That fills them with fear and trepidation, and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the matter. Health boards and health authorities should be alert to the problem and should take account of the fears and wishes of the people concerned.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about water privatisation, and I hope that the Minister took note of the general opposition to that idea. Indeed, opposition to it is all that we hear, not only from politicians representing constituencies in Northern Ireland but from the community in Northern Ireland and, as I said earlier, from the people who represent the work force in the water industry. The Government have said that they will not introduce water privatisation this side of a general election, but the people of Northern Ireland fear that creeping privatisation is taking place. They have seen the Capita report on attempts to hive off a series of functions


of the water industry, and they are also concerned that the change in the charging regime for water will be a prelude to privatisation.
A common issue across the country—it is not just a matter related to Stansted airport—is the question of air traffic control. The Select Committee on Transport has stated that the privatisation of air traffic control would not be in the interests of air travellers, or in the interests of Britain's reputation as a safe and secure air traffic centre. The Minister ought to take note of those concerns within Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
I shall move to some of the issues raised by hon. Members. I am sorry to have concentrated on the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), but he raised a considerable number of relevant and widely applicable issues.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised the issues of Larne harbour and the road transport system. I said in my opening remarks that the need for quick and effective communications to attract industry into Northern Ireland is paramount. The road system is important because many companies use containers to move goods to ports and then into the European transport system. That is a vital part of their economic success. The hon. Member for Antrim, East rightly identified the problems facing his constituency in respect of the variability of European Community grants, and all Members will have faced such difficulties.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) drew attention to a problem that is forgotten by many of us who represent substantially urban constituencies. I have one small farm with about two fields in the whole of my constituency. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that unemployment and poverty—even if they are widely spread in a rural area—still cause great feelings of hopelessness. We should not forget the poverty of people in rural and semi-rural areas.
The hon. Gentleman also identified problems with roads in his constituency. The effect of the peace dividend on those areas which have managed to avoid violence was a strong point very well made by the hon. Gentleman, and it should give us all pause for thought.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the problems in his constituency associated with the decommissioning of the fishing fleets, and that point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). Fishing communities around the country are concerned about the loss of employment which is a result of the unsatisfactory deal arrived at with regard to the Irish box. That obviously has implications for employment and, frankly, additional funds will not solve the problem. At the very least, however, an increase in the money available to assist the process of decommissioning is not only desirable but extremely necessary.
A further aspect of European Community policy was raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who talked about the vagaries of the common agricultural policy and how it affects livestock producers who are faced with one regime when selling their produce and another regime when buying their raw materials. We need to ensure that the Government are representing the interests of farmers in all parts of the United Kingdom as

effectively as some other European Governments represent their farmers. I am sure that he found much common ground in the Chamber with his comments on the common agricultural policy.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen mentioned co-operative ventures in farming—that is not surprising, given his strong links with the co-operative movement and his history—and the inadequate amounts of money available for that, especially as the agricultural community moves into difficult times.
We are also considering the significant importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy, in terms not only of primary production but of manufacturing and production based on agriculture. That is extremely important throughout the community, especially when we take in the argument of the hon. Member for South Down about the need to maintain employment and activity in rural areas. I am sure that the Minister took on board those arguments in relation to the need for assistance to the co-operative sector of agriculture.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the problem of children under five who cannot get mobility allowance. That is a nationwide problem, which has been raised by a number of Members of Parliament, and we have found the responses to be fairly unsatisfactory, especially when one takes into account the difficulties facing parents if their children are not only unable to walk but genuinely immobile and also becoming larger and heavier—for example, when trying to get them from the clinic to the car. The authorities should be more flexible and understanding. I hope that the Minister has taken those arguments on board.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly stressed the fact that, while applications for grants have to be properly checked and assessed, unnecessary delay can cause considerable hardship. I am sure that we have all had people in our surgeries and advice bureaux who have got themselves into fearful difficulties as a result of gaps in income. While expenditure continues, they get into debt and incur the charges of those who are trying to recover the debt, whether it be the local council, the electricity board or some other organisation. They get into a spiral of debt and difficulty. I hope that the Minister recognises that problem and will convey to the proper authorities the need to ensure proper speed when processing claims.
I shall conclude shortly so as to allow the Minister time to answer the many questions raised in the debate, which is a welcome return to discussing the main, normal issues which face people day in and day out—the ordinary problems of getting by in life, earning a living, bringing up children and ensuring that they have a decent life with some hope for the future. The peace process has given some hope for the future. We need to ensure that people are able to fulfil those hopes and aspirations in their economic and social life. This debate will be part of a long series as we press the Government to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the future and the prosperity that they deserve.

Sir John Wheeler: This has been a detailed debate on the "Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 1994-95". It reminds me somewhat of autumn, in as much as I am obliged to deliver at the outset a rather tedious speech, in which I announce the spending estimates and


priorities for the coming period. That enables many hon. Members to raise very detailed matters, and I am placed in the position of responding to the autumn leaves falling—they are so many, varied and numerous—but, during the time allowed to me, I shall endeavour to reply to as many of them as I am able.
All the points made by hon. Members from Northern Ireland who contributed to the debate will be carefully considered by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and, where possible or appropriate, if I cannot refer to any of the issues that they raised this evening, they will receive a reply. Five hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have been able to speak during the course of this debate: the hon. Members for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs); for South Down (Mr. McGrady); for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea); for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe); and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I am particularly anxious to put their constituencies on record because they are all, in various ways, doughty champions of their constituents' interests. They have endeavoured to speak for others who could not participate in tonight's debate in so many of the important issues that concern the people of Northern Ireland.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) mentioned expenditure in Northern Ireland. May I tell him about the positive developments that have taken place and the substantial resources that are available? During 1994–95, the Government will make available no less than £7.5 billion to maintain the services at a high level and promote a range of developments and activities.
Those include—some of these points were touched on by hon. Members—expenditure on education services this year, which will be £1,301 million, an increase of 4 per cent. over 1993-94; and expenditure on health and personal social services, which will be £1,433 million, an increase of 7.3 per cent. over 1993-94. Over the past 15 years, spending on education rose by 35 per cent. in real terms and on health and personal social services by 52 per cent. Those impressive achievements illustrate the impact of the Government's policies on matters that are important to everyone in Northern Ireland.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Warley, West, suggested that, were he in government, there would be substantial additional expenditure over and above that which I have just described to the House. What he did not say, however, is whether that additional expenditure would be found from increased taxation on the citizens of the United Kingdom as a whole, or whether other Government services and activities would be reduced. He owes an explanation to the public in due course about that.
The hon. Member for Warley, West said in his closing remarks that the Government had failed in their negotiations over the fishing issue. I strongly refute that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food fought vigorously for British interests and produced the best deal for the UK fishermen. Had he not succeeded, fishermen would have been worse off and would not have had the arrangements in respect of the Irish box.

Rev. Martin Smyth: During the debate it was suggested that more funds should have been made available for decommissioning. Was not that the position taken by the Government of the Republic of Ireland,

giving fishermen in the Republic more money for decommissioning, which is why they were reasonably satisfied?

Sir John Wheeler: Yes, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Northern Ireland fishermen have benefited from the decommissioning schemes, with the removal of 43 vessels under the 1993 and 1994 schemes. The additional £28 million earmarked for decommissioning over the next three years highlights the Government's commitment to giving assistance to rationalise the capacity of the UK fleet towards a level which fish stocks can sustain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman found that helpful.

Mr. McGrady: A matter requiring clarification has just arisen regarding the deal that was done at the Essen conference. As the Minister has now said, 43 boats are bound to be decommissioned, but 40 boats from the Spanish fleet will be permitted to enter the Irish box. Can the Minister explain whether that refers to 40 specific vessels or 40 vessels at any one time—in other words, the entire Spanish fleet by rotation?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman will understand that that goes somewhat outwith the Northern Ireland supplementary spring estimates and outside my jurisdiction as a Minister for Northern Ireland, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food considers the hon. Gentleman's question and gives him as much help as he can by way of explanation.
I wish to respond to the brief intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is in his place, about Belfast international airport. The hon. Gentleman asked about the possible clawback of EC funds for Belfast international airport. On 16 August 1994, the Commission requested information about the terms and conditions relating to the sale of Belfast international airport and details of all the European regional development fund aid paid to the airport. That was to enable the Commission to consider whether clawback of ERDF aid would be appropriate. That information was sent to the Commission by the Government on 26 September 1994, but to date nothing has been heard from the Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman found that helpful.
The hon. Member for Warley, West was very selective in his references to surveys of the Northern Ireland economy. Almost without exception, those have been reported as showing growing confidence and success, and were a theme of the debate this afternoon. The Northern Ireland economy has grown faster than the national economy. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has decreased in 10 of the past 12 months. Put another way, in the year to September 1994, the number of employees in employment in Northern Ireland increased by 6,300, to reach 553,720. That represents an all-time high for employees in employment in Northern Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Spellar: Will the Minister tell us the breakdown in that increase between full-time and part-time jobs?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman may know the answer, but I would say that jobs in Northern Ireland are welcome, whether they are called full-time or part-time, and the Government are in the business of encouraging the economy of Northern Ireland to find more jobs. I shall now press on. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for


Warley, West may care to ignore the facts, but the fact is that the Government's policies are strengthening the Northern Ireland economy and targeting social need, and are making significant improvements for all sections of the Northern Ireland community.
The hon. Member for Warley, West mentioned several other matters. I can confirm that the routine metering of purely domestic water supplies is not under consideration. Expenditure on roads maintenance, which has been referred to by several hon. Members from Northern Ireland, will be £41 million in 1995–96—evidence of the priority that the Government give the roads programme.
I know, as a result of travelling throughout Northern Ireland and meeting councils and others, that everyone wants his specific road priority scheme to be dealt with this year, if not sooner. I understand the enthusiasm of the councils, the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and others to see the road system improved as often as possible.
The hon. Member for Warley, West also referred to assistance for the long-term unemployed. The Government recognise fully the problems faced by the long-term unemployed, who are unlikely to gain employment unless their skills are updated and their motivation is improved. The Government have a radical new approach, which aims to put a large percentage of the long-term unemployed back to work.
We propose to introduce a pilot scheme which we shall call the community work programme. It aims to provide the long-term unemployed with opportunities to obtain useful work to allow them to rebuild their skills and regain their confidence. The pilot scheme will provide for at least 1,000 places in 1995-96 and, if it is successful, it will eventually provide up to 2,000 places. I am sure that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will be particularly glad to hear that.

Mr. Beggs: I assure the Minister that we all welcome the prospect of the creation of additional jobs. However, will he assure the House that areas beyond Belfast and Londonderry will benefit from those jobs?

Sir John Wheeler: A theme of tonight's debate has been the determination and enthusiasm of the five hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies in championing the causes of their constituents. I understand, and sympathise with, their aims. Of course, serious pockets of unemployment—often long-term unemployment—can be found all over Northern Ireland. They occur for different reasons. The Government's new scheme is intended to benefit, and to provide hope and opportunities to, people throughout Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when the scheme is applied, the responsible Minister will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns and interests are taken into account.
One way of helping the unemployed is by sustaining and encouraging small businesses. The Government's programme of support for the small business community is provided mainly through the Local Enterprise Development Unit—LEDU—which operates either directly or through an extensive network of some 40 local enterprise agencies. That organisation has an annual budget of more than £30 million. It seeks to assist small

manufacturing businesses through a wide range of schemes and initiatives which aim to improve competitiveness and to stimulate increased sales, particularly export sales. LEDU, in liaison with the local enterprise agency network, provides support to individuals who wish to become self-employed and stair up new businesses.
The hon. Member for Warley, West and others also referred to housing expenditure. The Government's public expenditure contribution to housing is some £224 million in 1994-95. When supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, gross resources for housing should amount to £564 million. Those substantial resources will enable the Housing Executive to spend £33 million on building new houses.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties experienced by some of those in the contracting industry. They will welcome that additional expenditure because it means an opportunity for jobs for their employees. In addition, £96 million will be spent on repairs and maintenance, which will offer further work opportunities to building contractors. Some £73 million will be spent the rehabilitation and improvement of the existing housing stock. Expenditure on grants to private house owners is likely to be some £33 million and gross expenditure by the housing associations will amount to £45 million. All that expenditure is designed not only to improve the housing stock, but to feed back into the opportunities for employment.
Contrary to the claim by the hon. Member for Warley, West, the Government have a clear energy policy, which was set out in the Department of the Environment document, "Energy for the nineties and beyond". It includes energy efficiency, the clean provision and use of energies, lower cost and the provision of consumer interests, diversion of energy supply and security of supply.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East raised a large number of points and I shall endeavour to deal with as many as I can. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the relocation of the Stena Sealink from Larne harbour to Belfast. It is, of course, solely a matter for the commercial judgment of Stena Sealink what services it operates and on what routes. The Government are not in any way involved in that process. No European Union assistance will be available for any move of Stena Sealink's conventional ferries from Larne to Belfast. I understand that Stena Sealink will announce next month that it is relocating its Stranraer service from Larne to Belfast.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to roads serving Larne port, particularly the Belfast to Larne road, in which I know that he has a great deal of interest. About one third of the Belfast to Larne road is of motorway or dual-carriageway standard. As he says, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland plans to bring forward a scheme to dual the remaining single-carriageway section. The first stage is scheduled to start in 1997–98. The remaining stages will be taken forward as funding permits and I know his desire to see that process speeded up will be well understood by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for these matters.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to capital spending on schools. Capital provision for education and library boards in 1994–95 is some £47 million, of which almost


£15 million will be spent on major building works and some £17 million on minor capital works, school buses, site purchases and equipment. The remainder of the budget is for earmarked provision and includes £11 million for capital projects associated with education reform. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the capital moratorium, and will draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters so that he may give it further consideration.
Reference was also made to nursery education. I recognise, and am an enthusiast for, the value of nursery education in the development of pre-school age children, particularly in areas of social need, so I noted the hon. Gentleman's point with much interest and support.
The policy statement on early years provision for Northern Ireland, which was published jointly by the Departments of Education, of Health and of Social Services in September 1994, affirms the Government's long-term commitment to providing one full year's nursery education for all children, while focusing initially on areas of greatest need. It also provides a framework within which future services for young children will be developed.
The statement raises a number of issues which the Department wishes to take forward. Initial discussions with education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools have already taken place, and it is intended to have further discussions shortly and I shall respond to the hon. Member's other points on education by way of correspondence.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned electricity prices. I note his concern, but as I believe he knows, it is more expensive to produce and distribute electricity in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain because power stations are smaller, the reserve margin is higher and customers, on

average, are more dispersed. He also referred to the possible extension of the transitional relief fund scheme. That scheme was introduced to give industry time to adjust to the application of cost-reflected pricing following privatisation. It will have served that purpose by the time it ends, on 31 March 1996.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to Order [3 March].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

PETITION

Quarry Application (Heywood)

10 pm

Mr. Jim Callaghan: I wish to present a petition from the residents of Heywood, in my constituency. It has 3,863 signatures.
The Petition of Residents of Heywood
Declares that the plans for land at Gort Sandpit and Wilderness Quarry are premature to the UDP Inquiry to be held by the inspector in May 1995. They are contrary to the current Heywood Local Plan and the residents are concerned that all the strategic issues were not fully considered by the Local Planning Authority when they reached this decision.
Therefore the Petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State to call in the planning application for consideration at a Planning Inquiry.
And the Petitioners remain
Colin Thompson, 41 Vicarage Road, North Rochdale.

To lie upon the Table.

Television (Invasion of Privacy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--/Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Sir Michael Marshall: My reason for raising the invasion of privacy by television programmes stems directly from the experience of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Desmond Squire. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) to say that it also stems from the experience of his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. David McAllister, and that of their son Duncan. My right hon. Friend is present; let me take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude for all he has done in pursuing the interests of both families, despite ministerial constraints. I believe that his presence tonight speaks for itself, as does the work that he has done in his constituency capacity.
I am also grateful for the interest of other hon. Members. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who is also present, will know that in many senses the matter to which I refer results from the tragedy affecting the Province of Northern Ireland.
The complaints and remedies that I wish to advance in the short time available to me stem from the commissioning, production and screening of a film entitled "Beyond Reason" by Carlton (UK) Television Ltd. and Kensington Films and Television in prime time on 20 February 1995. The film related to the killing of my constituents' daughter—Penny McAllister, a young army officer's wife—by a woman soldier in Northern Ireland in 1991.
Let me say immediately that my concern—while inevitably concentrating on what I see as the invasion of the privacy of my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend—is not confined to that one film or to commercial television; similar concerns currently apply to the BBC. I shall point to other examples of objectionable television "faction", as it is described, and to documentaries in relation to which the relevant regulatory authorities have accepted complaints about invasion of privacy.
In assessing the extent of suffering that is caused to innocent victims of crime, particularly to families, I have been greatly assisted by a number of individual representations and, in particular, by the widespread evidence that was given to me by Victim Support. Its work shows many instances in which it has felt it right to question whether the retelling of sensational cases is in the public interest. Clearly, it feels that it is not. It sees cases where such retelling is deeply hurtful to the families and to friends of the parties involved, and where it delays the recovery from the ordeal from which many of them have already suffered.
At this stage, let me put the film "Beyond Reason" in the context of the 1994 report of the chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. He said:
We continue to be concerned by crime reconstructions particularly when they are based on cases which have occurred in the recent past. We feel it is very important that in the making of such programmes consideration is given to the position of the relatives of the victim.
It is precisely that area—the position of the immediate families—that I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister tonight. The detailed complaint that I have submitted on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Squire, and that

which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade has submitted on behalf of Mr. Duncan McAllister, have gone directly to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and we look to it to adjudicate.
I shall therefore endeavour tonight to avoid the detail of that particular complaint, and, indeed, much of the emotion that one feels about it, because I want to discuss some broad principles arising from such cases—conscious that my hon. Friend cannot be held responsible for the actions of the programme makers, but conscious, too, of the concern that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage have expressed publicly on these issues. Above all, I want to take this opportunity to draw attention to the way in which the dice are loaded against families in such situations.
Let me first describe the situation that could apply to any family who becomes aware of a projected television programme, whether drama documentary or straight documentary, covering a crime reconstruction that involves a member of their family. If they object, what can they do?
There are, I believe, four relevant organisations with a regulatory role. First, there is the Independent Television Commission, which, under the Broadcasting Act 1990, operates general provisions which include the following terms:
that nothing is included in its programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling.
Secondly, in the case with which I am concerned in commercial television, there is the influence that is exercised by the ITV network, which effectively books programmes for prime time viewing. It is required by the Act to regulate in advance the content of programmes. It has confirmed to me, however, in the most straightforward way, that in practice that means reviewing a script, which is usually put to it some 18 months before transmission, and it has little or no say in what emerges in the final version.
Thirdly, as regards complaints, there is the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which can look at representations made either directly by those affected or by those acting with their authority in cases of unjust or unfair treatment and unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Finally, there is the Broadcasting Standards Council, which can look into complaints about excessive sex or violence and general matters of taste.
But the problem with all those organisations, so far as my constituents and others in their situation are concerned, is that they are all—they admit freely—powerless to exercise any real influence until the programme has been shown and, in many cases, the damage done. That was the position faced by the Squire and McAllister families, as well as my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself in acting on their behalf.
In seeking to prevent the broadcasting of a programme such as I have described, there seem to be only two remedies, one of which is to seek an injunction to prevent the programme from going ahead. My advice is that that would require a case to be made showing either libel or defamation. Quite apart from the cost implication and the fact that legal aid is not available in bringing actions of that kind, common sense says that it would be well nigh impossible to prove such a case without access to the script or to a preview of the film, both of which were denied to my constituents and the McAllisters.


There remains only the option of appealing to the film makers. The families affected by the making of "Beyond Reason" did so on many occasions. Their letters and the accounts of their meetings with the television executives concerned in the period from April 1994 to the eve of screening two and a half weeks ago, make heart-rending reading. They begged the film makers to cancel the project, and were fully supported by my right hon. Friend and by me.
What was the effect of all those representations? Obviously, the programme went ahead, and perhaps the best way for me to stand back from my feelings on the subject is to relate what some of those who were directly concerned in a professional capacity had to say. I turn to what can only be summarised as a barrage of criticism such as I have never seen before from those in the press who would be naturally inclined to support the argument for freedom of expression.

The Guardian said that this was

"the latest dubious recreation of a real recent crime. There was no good reason to use real names or for us to repeat them."

The Independent commented in an introductory disclaimer, adding:

"This is what passes for ethics in real life drama."

The Times stated:

"The real question is should this film have been made at all? I would say no, if only because of the objections of Penny McAllister's parents."

The Daily Telegraph said:

"We were in the ethically highly questionable world of 'faction'".

The writer in The Daily Express said:

"Beyond Reason was heralded by its publicity as impressive, compelling and a real-life story of a tragic affair leading to a fatal attraction murder".

She added:

"Well how about these for a few meaty adjectives to beef up the credits: disgusting, cynical, repellent, obscene, nauseating, cruel, heartless and twisted. Oh I watched it all right with mounting anger at the pain it would have caused Penny McAllister's parents."

Innocent victims of crimes, such as my constituents, were put through the whole process of aggravated suffering, with massive pre-television and press publicity, with the bringing back to life of their dead daughter, as well as the portrayal of themselves by look-alike actors. This offence is compounded by the re-creation of hairstyles, clothes and all the details that were required, whatever disclaimers are made, to give a calculated impression of total reality.

Again one asks, what can they and others in such situations do, and what remedies are open to them? As I have said, complaints have been submitted by my right hon. Friend and by me to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Independent Television network and the Broadcasting Standards Council. They have all been made aware of the terms of those complaints, but they are all severely hampered in any action that they can take.

I am not prejudging what may happen, but I am aware that the serious thought which went into the latest revision of the ITC programme code as recently as last month shows the concern within that organisation. Plainly, the revised code still allows the programme makers to proceed without taking a blind bit of notice of the families concerned.

On the positive side, I am aware from correspondence with the ITV network that its commissioning policy is moving away from crime reconstruction, and I understand that, in some instances, that has been supported by those who are responsible for making programmes applying a self-denying ordinance. There is also evidence of real concern by TV industry leaders such as Mr. Michael Grade, and we should open up this debate.

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission provides the immediate opportunity for complaints in this case. It has upheld a number of relevant complaints, including, for example, that made against Granada Television for the dramatic reconstruction of a murder case in Scotland which was broadcast in 1993. Significantly, when "Beyond Reason" was shown on 20 February, it was preceded by an announcement on the screen giving the terms of a commission finding on another programme, when it upheld a complaint of invasion of privacy against "World in Action" from the parents of a murdered child.

That points directly to the fundamental weakness and lack of sanctions that are open to regulatory authorities such as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. All that happens after such criticisms have been upheld is that there is a requirement for the commission's announcement to be published in the "TV Times", and to be shown briefly on the television screen.

As a sanction, that can be seen only as the merest slap on the wrist. There is no obligation on the broadcaster to indicate whether the criticism has been accepted, or whether it will lead to a change in policy. Above all, there is no requirement to apologise to the aggrieved party.

Under those circumstances, what can Her Majesty's Government and the House do to right what is clearly the manifest weakness and injustice in our systems? First, my understanding is that the Broadcasting Act 1990 must be reviewed in 1997-98. Removal of the old independent broadcasting authorities' right to view programmes before transmission, and the reliance on self-regulation no longer seems appropriate.

I urge the Government, therefore, to consider providing the Independent Television Commission with the power—where it has good reason to suspect that an intended programme may be in breach of either the spirit or letter of the code—to call for a screening of that programme before transmission and, if necessary, to order its withdrawal. A similar power should be extended to the ITV network.

Taken together, those proposals would provide the possible sanction and deterrent against sensationalism and the "ratings at all costs" approach, which underlies some of the problems that I have described. They would go a long way to ensuring that programmes were truly receptive to the views of families.

Secondly, I understand that Her Majesty's Government are considering the possible merger of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission with the Broadcasting Standards Council. I urge that that should take place in the near future. It is clear that problems exist for people who make complaints, because they are put from one organisation to the other. There is necessarily a close interrelationship between unfair and unjust treatment, invasions of privacy, and judgments of taste in relation to such matters as sex and violence.

Thirdly, the situation that I have outlined is an additional reason for giving urgent consideration to introducing legislation that would cover the statutory right to privacy. In that sense. I support the thrust of the 1990 Calcutt report and of the most recent of his reports, which puts forward the idea of a new tort of invasion of privacy.

I have noted that that last proposal has attracted the support of the Select Committee on National Heritage in its fourth report on privacy and media intrusion, to which the Government are due to respond. That Committee's concern, and that of Calcutt, were primarily with regard to the press, but those same principles should apply in considering ways in which the people affected by television could be covered.

I cannot end without adding that I have tried, as far as possible, to stick to arguments of principle, despite deep feelings on this matter. Much might be said about a position that has clearly appalled even insiders in the industry. Having seen the ways in which programme makers can ride roughshod over the wishes of the families concerned—so that, as one family member has said,
"they are playing God with our lives"—

I am clear where the public interest lies in these matters. It must surely be in providing real checks and balances, and real deterrents and ways in which the sufferings of constituents, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North and myself may be avoided for others.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on the persistence that has resulted in his getting a debate on this deeply serious and tragic subject. I have listened carefully to his concerns about the difficult and important subject of media intrusion into private lives.
As so many individual cases have shown, the line between a legitimate public interest in the issues involved, and the rights of individuals to privacy and fair treatment, is not a clear and definite one. That must be more so when the issues are presented as scripted drama, with the tensions of that genre highlighting individual circumstances, involving particular and identifiable people.
It is not for the Government to comment on the artistic merits of the drama "Beyond Reason". My hon. Friend will understand the long established convention that Government do not normally become involved in individual production or programming decisions. What the Government have done is to establish the independent Broadcasting Complaints Commission precisely to deal with the sort of problems raised tonight about this play.
The adjudicatory approach of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission allows persons affected by a broadcast, where they feel that they have suffered unfair treatment or an invasion of privacy, to make a complaint and receive a full hearing, legally represented if they choose. If their complaint is upheld, a summary will be published in the appropriate television programme guide, as my hon. Friend said, and the findings broadcast in a prominent position in an evening schedule.
My hon. Friend described this as a mere slap on the wrist, and I can well understand why he so described it, but the Government's intention was that the thorough

adjudication process should leave both sides with a better understanding for the future of where the boundaries lie.
Broadcasters have, I believe, generally shown respect for issues of privacy. Of the 13 complaints made to the commission between April 1993 and March 1994, only one was fully upheld, and four were upheld in part. In the current year, the commission has dealt with 23 complaints of unwarranted invasion of privacy, of which three were upheld and one upheld in part.
The general programme code published by the Independent Television Commission, the BBC's producer guidelines and the Broadcasting Standards Council's code of practice all provide a sound framework within which the broadcasters consider to what extent they are entitled to use material that identifies individuals, or incidents from the recent past.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government intend at the earliest opportunity to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The Government, too, recognise the close relationship between their functions and believe that members of the public will appreciate the clarity that the merger will bring.
My hon. Friend suggested that it may be preferable to allow the regulatory bodies to preview controversial programmes. It is a very interesting idea, and I shall look at it closely. He may wish to have a meeting with me on the subject, so that we can pursue these matters at greater length than is possible during an Adjournment debate.
The Government usually take the view that, in a mature society, censorship or prior restraint is undesirable and contrary to the right of free expression enshrined in the European convention on human rights. The approach adopted in this country—that of self-regulation by the broadcasters against a framework of guidelines and codes of practice—has always been considered the best way to balance the right to freedom of expression with considerations of taste, decency, privacy and fair representation. Viewers then have every opportunity to express their opinions on particular programmes, and can be seen to be influencing programming decisions themselves.
If a commercial broadcaster persists in flouting the ITC's code—section 3.7 deals specifically with drama documentaries—the commission may impose financial sanctions, and ultimately withdraw the broadcaster's licence. The BBC is responsible, under the royal charter, for responding to similar complaints.
The Government are absolutely not complacent where issues of privacy are involved. As with the portrayal of sex and violence on television, we are currently looking closely into the matter of privacy. It is under review at the moment, as we recognise it to be an area of great concern across all forms of media production, written and audio-visual. We shall, before long, be publishing a White Paper on privacy and media intrusion, and it is, of course, possible in the light of this that the regulatory bodies may be prompted to clarify further, strengthen or otherwise change existing guidelines and codes of practice.
I noted my hon. Friend's observation that it is time for the enactment of a statutory right of privacy. In the light of the forthcoming White Paper, I cannot comment on that this evening, beyond what I have already said, but I have noted my hon. Friend's views. As I said, I should be extremely


keen to discuss the matter further with him and, indeed, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade if he so wishes, given his close interest in the matter.
My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently on behalf of his constituents, whose daughter was depicted in the drama "Beyond Reason". I am told—indeed, my hon. Friend mentioned this in his speech—that the makers of the play, which I have not yet seen, in their introductory script, were acutely conscious of the topicality of the play's subject matter, of the need to take into account whether publication was in the public interest, and of the need for care and sensitivity in the treatment of the reconstruction

of the crime. However, having heard my hon. Friend's comments, I have asked my officials to get me a video of the film so that I can see it before I have the meeting, which I hope I shall have, with my hon. Friend.
I know that my hon. Friend has made a complaint on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Squire to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and that the commission has entertained his complaint. I can do no more tonight than to take note of his concerns, and to await that adjudication.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.